After grant of divorce jewels and other articles handed over and duly receipted.

This civil revision petition is filed by the wife against the order dated 21.2.2006 passed by the Family Court, Coimbatore in I.A. No. 2266 of 2004 in H.M.O.P. No. 675 of 2004. The said petition was filed by the husband under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “C.P.C.”) for directing the revision petitioner/wife to deposit the articles (including jewellery and other items) and to pass suitable orders to preserve and protect the petition mentioned articles. A list of articles is also enclosed along with the petition. It was also stated that these articles were acknowledged to have been received by the petitioner/wife before an All Women Police Station (Control).

2. The main H.M.O.P. was filed by the respondent/husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking for divorce. It was taken on file as H.M.O.P. No. 675 of 2004. The revision petitioner filed a counter statement and refuted the allegations made against her and opposed the grant of divorce. Even while these proceedings are pending, a criminal complaint was filed by the wife against the husband under Section 498-A, I.P.C. May be precisely for that reason, the respondent/husband filed this interim application along with the H.M.O.P. It is seen from the records that both the application and the main O.P. were heard together and the matter was adjourned from time-to-time and finally, on 21.2.2006, when there was no representation on the side of the revision petitioner, the Family Court Judge, allowed the application and it is found in the order, which is as follows:

“The respondent did not file the counter. The respondent did not appear before this Court. It seems that the respondent has no objection to return the articles. Hence the respondent is liable to return the articles. Hence petition is allowed. The respondent is liable to return the articles.

In the result, petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to return the articles to the petitioner within 3 months. No costs.”

On the same day, the revision petitioner was set ex parte and the decree of divorce was also granted by the Family Court. However, it appears that while the revision petitioner has no objection against the ex parte decree for divorce and no challenge was made, it is only against the order dated 21.2.2006 passed in the interim application being I.A. No. 2266 of 2004, the present revision petition has been filed.

3. I have heard the arguments of Mr.V.C. Janardhanan, learned counsel appearing for Sarvabhauman Associates, for the revision petitioner and Mr.R. Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the records.

4. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that the order impugned in the revision petition can never be passed by the Family Court solely on the basis of some so-called acknowledgment given before the Police Station and since the revision petitioner had not appeared before the Family Court, it was wrong on the part of the Family Court to say that she has no objection for the return of the articles as if some concession was made and the order also was not in conformity with Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was further stated that the Court cannot pass a separate order and it should have formed part of the main O.P.

5. Per contra, Mr.R. Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that as it is an ex parte order, it is not open to the revision petitioner to file the present revision petition without disclosing the defence before the trial Court and though counter was filed in the main O.P., no counter was filed in the application and that the acknowledgment signed before the Police Station was also valid and he is not seeking for return of all the jewellery and in particular, only asking for the jewellery, which was solely owned by the respondent and they were not given as stridhan properties for the petiti