The jurisdiction of the Family Court under Section 7(1)(c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, to decide disputes relating to the property of the parties or either of them in a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage does not extend to the return of dowry articles which belong exclusively to the wife.

1. :- This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9th November, 1992 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court Jaipur rejecting petitioner's application dated 24th September, 1992 moved under Order 14 Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code in a divorce petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 1955 Act'). For the disposal of this writ petition, it is not necessary to go into the grounds on which the divorce petition has been moved.

2. The petitioner in the case moved an application under Order 14 Rule 5 C.P C. with a prayer that under Section 7(1)(c) of the Family Courts' Act 1984 an issue be framed with respect to the property of the parties so that there may be a decision for the return of this property to the petitioner. However, this prayer was refused by order dated 9th June, 1992 of the Judge Family Court, Ajmer, where the petition was pending at that time. She preferred an appeal before this Court and the same was dismissed on 5th August, 1992 holding that the impugned order was an interlocutory order and the appeal was not maintainable. However, an observation was made that the petitioner should move a fresh application to the Court below stressing upon the import of Section 7(c) of the Family Courts Act and requesting the Court about its importance in the suit itself. Thereafter, the case was transferred from the Family Court, Ajmer to Family Court, Jaipur and the petitioner moved a fresh petition of framing of issue in respect of dowry articles with reference to the order of the Court dated 5th August, 1992. This application has been refused by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jaipur by order dated 9th November, 1992, against which this writ petition has been filed. The grounds for challenge are that the Judge, Family Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 7(1)(c) of the Fimily Courts Act and there is a gross error of law apparent on the face of record.

3. The order of the learned Judge, Family Court which has been challenged in this petition may be looked into. It refers to Section 27 of the 1955 Act, which provides for disposal of property by the Court 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 wife. It has further been observed that in proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, orders for disposal of the property could be passed only in respect of property belonging jointly to both the husband and wife which is presented at or about the time of marriage and not to the Stridhan or the dowry goods which belong to the bride alone hence, he refused to frame an issue as desired by the petitioner.Learned Counsel for the non-petitioner has raised an objection about the maintainability of the writ petition. My attention has been firstly invited to two orders passed by two Division Benches of this Court in two different appeals filed by the petitioners. D,B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 426/1992 Smt. Padmja Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharma, was dismissed by a Division Bench on 20th May, 1993 wherein it was observed that the impugned order being of interlocutory nature no appeal was maintainable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. This appeal was against the order dated 9th June, 1992 of the Family Court, Ajmer by which the Court refused to accept an application under Order 14 Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code for framing an issue in the divorce petition. The another appeal was D.B. Civil Misc Appeal No. 436/1992 Smt. Padmja Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharma and this appears to be against the order passed on the application for grant of maintenance to minor children. However, it is difficult to say what was argued at the time of admission of the case. While dismissing the same, on 5th August, 1992 the Court has made observations that the appeal is against the judgment rejecting application for framing of issue partaining