irF •& 'i^Rs s: S ^ ;? ^^' _^a /-r ^-<.l^-.. SSE-liErs, ^^^.^?? 9 "c'u'KH IN THE HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURL4T BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227)J^IO. S^%> OF 2010 PETITIONERS (Non-applicants) Of^ ^y/ ^ 'xc'' /. {^' ^ AP ^ ..(^ '^'^' 1. Smt. Ram Bai Tiwari,widow of Late Devi Prasad Tiwari, aged about 65 years 2. Smt. Sunita Pandey, wife of Shri Jai Shankar Pandey, aged about 40 years. 3. Jai Shankar Pandey, son of Shri Rajdev Pandey, aged about 45 years. All the petitioners are residents of Village Bodla, P.S. Bodla, District Kawardha (Kabirdham) (Chhattisgarh) Vs ESPONDENT Ipplicant) Smt. Sudha Tiwan', widow of Late Shri Anil Tiwari, aged 30 years, resident of Quarter No.5-1-1, Road No.37, Zone-2, Sector-11, Bhilai Khursipaar, bistrict Durg (C6) PETITION UN&ER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA ^ )T DCTiTOThi .'9'97t MfS •;."fiS nf9j-j-if 's»s s s i'wi'y %&s,s s i'^i'^^- ^ is^.ui ^iij ^^ 3 g S i 5ti«^i "y i <ft* (iTi s^-s^r'iJ»^^s^f^i \i V 'V '^ °sspHM^^UlSl O r*ftT ^^--^ *^^ S/*t^ ^^". A f/^t 5'; /^.T^.F" 'fUl. n.s^iu S'^i s iy'VciU ^HU othgrs. u ^ d SU^ sApRllsant) Smt. Sudhs Tiwsri WR!T PETiTION UNDER ARTiCLE 227 OF THE 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA B -^t £falnt 5*' sUH Ui^ ^l'Sl : Shri Malay Shrivastava, counsel for the petitloners. Shri Uttam Pandey, counse! forthe respondent. 'assed on 5m day of S By way of this petition, the order dated 03-04-2010 passed by iearned Second Additiona! Principat Judge, Famiiy Court, Dur£ in Clvii Suif N0.103-A/2009 is called in question bv the petltioners/non-sppiicants.' ^- Bner racis or ine csse are as unaer: The petitioners/non-appiicants moved an application under ^tion 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') 'or return of Stree Dhan mentioned in Sch< .^ -^^ f^^^'l •f-\ .ciiUf IM with the application. The peiitioners denled the existence of Stree Dhan described in Scheduie-A, but offered to return aii the artlcles described in Schedule-B annexed with written statement Vide impugned order, the triai Court directed for attachment of one room of petitionsrs' house in which articies described in Schedu'e-B are to be kept instead of retuming if fo the respondent. . o, •w'. Learned counsei for the respondent submits that she Has no room to keep the above articles. Learned counse! for the respondent was unabis to show any provision under Section 27 :.^ 1 *sti '""" y j? ./ 9 ^.-^' ../y ^o y of the Act and under the Family CcfUrt's Act suthorizing the Famiiy Court to pass such order. 4. At the best, the Famiiy Court should have passed the order for retu'n of the articies pending decision of respondent's applicatiori but the order directing attachment of one roorn of the petitioners' house for kseping the articles described in Scheduie-B, is totaiiy iltegai and unwarranted. Therefore, the order impugned is set aside. 5. However, the respondent, if so advised, may take those artlcles offered by the petitioners. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge i