IMPORTANT POINT
Matrimonial Court trying any proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act has the jurisdiction to make such provision in 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 husband and wife.

ORDER

This appeal by special leave calls in question the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, dated 30.4.1992 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 1991. The controversy in this appeal is limited and revolves around the prayer of the respondent - wife for an order under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereafter the Act) in respect of the property held by the wife. So far as the other matrimonial disputes between the parties are concerned, they stand settled and are not the subject matter of an issue before us in this appeal.

2. The background in which the dispute relating to the grant of relief under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act arose, need a notice at this stage.

3. There were matrimonial proceedings between the parties. The respondent - wife had instituted proceedings in the City Civil Court at Bombay for a decree of judicial separation as also for grant of maintenance. She also claimed relief under Section 27 of the Act in respect of her jewellery and other property. The appellant - husband had filed a petition seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Both those proceedings were disposed of by a common judgment, dated 21st April 1987. The appellant s petition for decree of divorce was dismissed while the respondent s petition for judicial separation was granted. Maintenance was also held payable to the respondent - wife from the date of the decree till the children of the parties attain the age of majority . The respondent filed first appeal and the learned Single Judge of the High Court partly allowed the appeal and directed the appellant - husband to pay maintenance from the date of presentation of the petition and not from the date of decree only. The appellant, on the basis of the decree of judicial separation obtained by the respondent, subsequently sought dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground that there had been no resumption of cohabitation between the parties after the decree of judicial separation. A decree of divorce was, accordingly, granted by the Matrimonial Court to the appellant on 27.2.1991. The matrimonial court, however, rejected the prayer of the respondent - wife for relief under Section 27 of the Act. The respondent preferred two appeals which came to be disposed of by the Division Bench by the common judgment, dated 30.4.1992. While disposing of the appeals, the Division Bench, inter-alia opined that under Section 27 of the Act, the Court had jurisdiction to pass an order regarding the property, as mentioned in the Section itself and disagreeing with the learned Single Judge and the trial court, it was held by the Division Bench that the respondent - wife was entitled to an order under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act in respect of the property claimed by her in Exhibit A and made the order accordingly.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

5. The trial court, while dealing with the question of relief under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act opined :

"In my opinion, the Court trying matrimonial causes, has no jurisdiction to deal with the property rights of the parties. Hence I have declined to determine the issue of jewellery reserving the rights of the parties to a suit".

6. The learned Single Judge, while dealing with this aspect of the case, observed:

"Therefore in my view it is not possible to hold that the wife had established that those ornaments and the property, which she was claimed by Schedule Exhibit `A were presented to her at or at any time of marriage or to show that this had become the joint property of both husband and wife. Similarly, accordingly to me there is nothing to establish the identity or the co-relation of the golden ornaments contained in the admission of husband and which were claimed by the wife and so called admission of the husband it is not possible to hold that she is entitled to claim the return of any property".

The learned Single Judge then went on to hold:

"I con