G.R. Moolchandani, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.04.1999 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Civil Original Suit No. 24/1997.

In brief, the appellant-plaintiff Smt. Urmila brought a suit before the trial court against the respondent-defendant-husband that stridhan given to respondent-defendant has not been returned by her husband and same was snatched away by respondent, the suit was objected to with pleadings that nothing was given in dowry nor anything of that nature was customary in their Gurjar society and further requested to reject the suit since no stridhan was overdue.

On the basis of the pleadings, learned trial court framed following issues:-

1- vk;k okkfn;k izfroknh ls okn i= dh en ua-3 esa of.kZr L=h/ku dh jkf'k ,oa oLrqvks dks ikus dh vf/kdkjh gS\ & okfn;k

2- vk;k okfn;k izfroknh ls okn i= ds in ua-4 esa of.kZr tsojkr crksj L=h/ku izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gS\ & okfn;k

3- vk;k Qjhdsu ds lekt esa ngst izFkk dk izpyu u gksus ds dkj.k izfroknh dks dksbZ lkeku udn tsoj vkfn ugh fn;k\ &okfnk

4- vk;k izfroknh ds ikl okfn;k dk L=h/ku ds :Ik esa dksbZ /ku o lkeku ugha gS\

& izfroknh

5- vk;k nkok okfn;k ij iw.kZ U;k;'kqYd vnk ugh fd;k x;k gS\ & izfroknh

6- lgk;rkA

2. The appellant-plaintiff produced five witnesses and four documents were exhibited, whereas respondent-defendant also produced five witnesses. Learned trial court after examining and appreciating the evidence of both the sides decided issue number one and two against the appellant-plaintiff and found that the appellant-plaintiff was not entitled to seek any relief and suit was resultantly dismissed.

3. While pressing appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that both the sides have already settled their matrimonial relations through divorce but the respondent-husband has not returned cash and articles of stridhan to the appellant-wife, pointing out certain extract of statements of appellant-plaintiff, learned counsel has further argued that appellant has explicitly mentioned description of stridhan and articles given, at the time of marriage and in every marriage customary stridhan articles are given, which have not been returned so appellant is entitled to obtain return of all stridhan articles and money, which has wrongly been retained by respondent and has further said that the receipts of articles were already given to groom side despite the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence properly and erroneously passed the impugned judgment, so the appeal be accepted and the respondent be directed to return "stridhan" of appellant-plaintiff.

Contrariwise learned counsel for the respondent-defendant has contended that there is no error in the impugned judgment, appellant did not adduce any satisfactory evidence before the trial court, regarding alleged "stridhan" and nothing of this nature, even arisen in the divorce matter, which was decided in 1996 and suit for alleged "stridhan" and articles was belatedly filed under wrong contentions of alleged "stridhan", which is not outstanding against the respondent, appellant-plaintiff has miserably failed even to adduce any documentary evidence with respect to alleged delivery of "stridhan" to the respondent, so appeal is liable to be dismissed.

4. Heard both the sides and perused the record.

According to Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 giving and taking of dowry statutorily prohibited and Section 3(1) of Dowry Prohibition Act reads as under:-

"3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.- (1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable [with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than [five years, and with fine, which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more]:

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a t