ORDER :

(Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.)

1. Finding conflict between the judgments rendered by Division Bench of this Court in FAM No.61/2016 (Smt. Devika Joshi v. Shri Deepak Joshi, 2016 SCC OnLine Chh 2145), decided on 22-7-2016, holding that “independent suit under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act of 1955’) would be maintainable for return of stridhan” and another Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Babita alias Gyatri v. Modprasad alias Pintu Kheersai Patel and others, AIR 2018 Chhattisgarh 40, holding that “application for return of stridhan under Section 27 of the Act of 1955 is not maintainable”, Division Bench of this Court while hearing this F.A.(MAT) No.40/2022 preferred against the judgment & decree dated 23-12-2021 passed by the Family Court, Ambikapur in Civil Suit No.216A/2018, has referred the matter to Hon’ble the Chief Justice to be placed before larger Bench to answer the following stated question: -

“Whether the independent petition under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for return of stridhan would be maintainable before the family Court or not?”

2. Pursuant to the order of Hon’ble the Chief Justice (one of us), the matter has been placed before us for consideration. In order to answer the reference, it would be appropriate to notice the two judgments of this Court leading to the conflicting opinion and further leading to the reference before us: -

3. In Smt. Devika Joshi (supra), Division Bench of this Court dealing with the issue and relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another, 1985) 2 SCC 370, has held that Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, ‘the Act of 1984’) provides alternative remedy to the wife to recover stridhan by a properly constituted suit and an independent suit under Section 27 of the Act of 1955 is, thus, maintainable for which the Family Court has been conferred jurisdiction under Section 7(1) read with Explanation (c) of the Act of 1984, and it has been observed as under: -

“7. The subject application though captioned to be an application under Section 7(1) Explanation (c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, in essence it is a petition under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ’the Act, 1955,’), for return of the stridhan. Though Section 27 is couched in the language as if it can only be moved in a pending proceeding, however, as observed by the Supreme Court in Pratibha Rani Versus Suraj Kumar and another, 1985 (2) SCC 370, Section 7 provides alternative remedy to the wife to recover the stridhan by a properly constituted suit. An independent suit under Section 27 is, thus, maintainable for which the Family Court has been conferred jurisdiction under Section 7(1) Explanation (c).”

4. Thereafter, another Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Babita alias Gyatri (supra) again considering the issue with reference to return of stridhan and relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court and the M.P. High Court in the matters of Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam v. Sangeeta Balkrishna Kadam, AIR 1997 SC 3562 and Manish Nema v. Sandhya Nema, AIR 2009 MP 108, respectively, and also noticing the decision rendered by this Court in FAM No.5/2008 (Sanjay Kumar Manu v. Shrimati Urmila Manu, (2011) 1 Cg LJ (SN) 28 (Chh)) has held that application for return of stridhan under Section 27 of the Act of 1955 would not be maintainable, when no other matrimonial proceeding between parties has ever been decided or pending. It was further held that for recovery of stridhan, the Family Court dealing with divorce proceeding under the Act is not competent to decide the issue and independent suit claiming return of stridhan would be maintainable in accordance with Section 7 of the Act of 1984. It was held in paragraph 10 of the decision in Smt. Babita alias Gyatri (supra) as under: -

“10. A Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Manish Nema v. Sandhya Nema, reported in