( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4 6 1988 of the learned Addl District Judge, Delhi by which she dismissed petition under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the appellant alongwith her divorce petition. The divorce, however, was granted

( 2 ). By this application the appellant slated that her parents/other relations had presented to her the following articles at the time of her marriage.

(I) One golden set (Jaru) comprising of gulubind for neck, two karas, earrings.

(II) One another golden set called Makhi set comprising of neckles, two ponches, earrings and three rings.

(III) One golden set of small weight consisting of Kanti for the neck, karas for band and three rings.

(IV) golden churies 20.

(V) One Nath golden, one tika, one sangarpari nath.

(VI) 31 utensils of silver consisting of thats katcoas etc.

(VII) Utensils of brass (make Muradabadi) comprised in one bucket.

( 3 ) LEARNED ADJ held that since there was no averment in the application that the property was jointly presented to the appellant as well as her husband at the lime of the marriage so it was not maintainable under Section 27 of the Act

( 4 ). I have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention to some authorities. The first case is that of Anju Bhargava v Rajesh Bhargava Volume II (1986) DMC 467. A perusal of this authority shows that both the parties came to a settlement in that case. The husband agreed to pay RS. 20,. 000. 00 in instalments of Rs. 2000. 00 to the wife. The agreement was accepted by this Court and the case disposed off I am of the view that the other observations made in this authority holding that the words, "may belong jointly" may also mean, "may not belong jointly" in Section 27 of ihe Act are in the nature of obiter and cannot be called ratio decidendi. This court held in the case of Smt. Shukla v. Brij Bhushan Makkar 1982 Delhi 223 :

"section 27, Hindu Marriage Act 1955 is a substantive provision empowering ihe Court in any proceeding under the said Act to make a just and proper order regarding properly presented at or about the time of the marriage of the parties and belonging jointly to both of them. The Court exercising the jurisdiction under the Act is powerless to deal with properties exclusively belonging to one or the other spouse". In the above case the wife who pleaded that the properties were presented to her and, therefore, beounged-to her was held not-entitled to the relief of their recovery under Section 27 of the Act. Her remedy lay before the Civil Courts. Neither could such an order be based on Order 7 Rule 7 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code. The aforesaid view was followed by this Court in Ashok Kumar Kad v. Usha Rani Kad, FAO No. 111 of 1983 reported in 1985 M L R. 21. The Court said:

"it is no doubt true that the operation of the provision embodied in Section 27 of the Act is confined only to property presented to the parties at or about the time of the marriage which belongs jointly to both of them,"therefore, in matters which were contested by the parties before this Court, the consistent view is that Section 27 of the Act is attracted when the property presented at or about the time of the marriage is alleged to being jointly to both the spouses. In the present case, the allegation is that all the aforesaid articles were presented to her at the time ot marriage by her parents/other relations, meaning thereby that the same belonged to her. Learned counsel for the appellant also drew my attention to the case of Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another, AIR 1985 SC 628 After going through the aforesaid authority, lam of the view that the same as not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case the wife had filed a criminal complaint against the husband alleging misappropriation of the property absolutely owned by her The Court of first instance summoned the husband as an accused.