Smt. Manjit Kaur vs Inderjit Singh

Jawaharlal Gupta, J.—The appellant was married to the respondent on 29-11-1983. It appears that certain proceedings were initiated soon thereafter. The exact particulars are not on the record. However, it is clear that on 28-2-1986, the wife Smt. Manjit Kaur filed a petition u/s 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. She claimed an amount of Rupees 8,500/- on account of price of the jewellery, the various articles given in the dowry, the cash paid to the husband as also on account the value of the silver ornaments. The learned Additional District Judge accepted her claim for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- vide order dated 6-9-1986. She was awarded Rs. 33,000/- on account of gold jewellery. Rs. 15,000/- on account of the value of miscellaneous articles. Rs. 1,700/- in cash and Rs. 300/- by way of price of the silver ornaments. Aggrieved by the order, the husband filed an appeal. It was contended that the trial Court had erred in accepting the claim with regard to the amount of Rs. 33,000/- for gold jewellery. He contested the orders even regarding payment of Rs. 1,700/- by way of cash and Rs. 300/- on account of silver jewellery. The plea of the respondent-husband having been accepted by the learned single Judge, the wife has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal.

Mr. R. K. Battas, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the learned single Judge has erred in placing a very narrow construction on the provisions of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. According to the learned Counsel, the wife is entitled to recover the amount as claimed by her and that the learned single Judge has erred in varying the order passed by the learned trial Court. Is it so?

Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides as under :--

"27. Disposal of property.-- In any proceeding under this Act, the Court may make such provisions in the decree as it deems just and proper with respect to any property presented, at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife."

A perusal of the above provision shows that the Court trying a matrimonial case has been empowered to make provision in the decree regarding disposal of the property which was presented at or about the time of marriage. This is, however, subject to the condition that such property must ''belong jointly'' to the two spouses. The statute provides an additional forum where the Court which is trying a matrimonial cause can also make provision in respect of the articles presented at or about the time of the wedding and whidh''afe held jointly by the husband and wife. The provision does not authorise the Court to pass orders with regard to any other property. The view we arc taking, finds support from the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam Vs. Sangeeta Balkrishna Kadam, . It has been held by their Lordships, "that the Matrimonial Court trying any proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has the jurisdiction to make such provision in the decree as it deems just and proper with respect to any property presented" at or about the time of marriage" which may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife. This Section provides an alternate remedy to the wife so that she can recover the property which is covered by the Section, by including it in the decree in the matrimonial proceedings, without having to take recourse to the filing of a separate Civil Suit and avoid further litigation," It has been further observed by their Lordships in para 13 that the provisions of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act which "unmistakably vests the jurisdiction in the Court to pass an order, at the time of passing a decree in a matrimonial cause, in respect of the property presented, at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to the husband and the wife".

The two pre-conditions for starting the proceedings u/s 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act are,--

(i) the property should have been presented, at or about the time of marriage,

(ii) it should be held jointly.

The learned single Judge has found that there is no evidence with regard to the items of gold jewellery, the cash or the silver coins that these were held jointly by the parties. Consequently, the claim in respect of these items has been held to have been erroneously granted by the learned trial Court. The decree of the trial Court has been accordingly varied. We find no infirmity in the order which may call for interference in the Letters Patent Appeal.

In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal which is consequently dismissed. Since no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent, we pass no order as to costs.