A wife can seek return of dowry articles and compensation under the Domestic Violence Act even if a divorce petition is dismissed, and the appeal is maintainable.

ORDER :

1. I have heard Ms. P. Sinduja, party-in-person and Mr. S. Kumar for the respondent.

2. This civil revision petition arises against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore District in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in HMCMA No. 19 of 2022.

3. The civil revision petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband. The petitioner married the respondent on 12.12.2010 at Bargur, Vellore District as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. There are no issues from the wedlock. Due to disputes and differences, the parties separated.

4. The respondent/husband presented HMOP No. 54 of 2013 under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and sought a decree for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty.

5. The wife entered appearance and stated that respondent/husband was the one who used to treat her cruelly and used to assault her physically and emotionally. She pleaded that several attempts had been made towards resolution, but it was of no avail. Just prior to the proceedings, a complaint was lodged with All Women Police Station at Ranipet. On 11.01.2012, the husband appeared gave a voluntary statement that he has in his custody. The following articles belonging to the wife:

(i) 75 sovereigns of gold.

(ii) 11 Silver Articles.

(iii) Rs.5,00,000/- that had been paid as dowry.

(iv) another amount of Rs.5,00,000/- that had been paid for purchase of a car.

6. During the course of enquiry in HMOP No. 54 of 2013, the wife filed an application in I.A. No. 8 of 2018 seeking for a direction to the respondent to return the aforesaid articles. The said application came to be dismissed by the Trial Court on 29.01.2019. Aggrieved by the same, a civil revision petition was preferred by the wife before this Court in CRP (PD) No. 427 of 2019.

7. This Court recorded the undertaking given by the husband to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as maintenance within a period of two weeks. The receipt of this sum is not in dispute. This Court further directed the Trial Court to take into consideration the aforesaid statement at the time of disposal of the main HMOP. Even at the time of disposal of this revision, the Court refused to accept the plea that the letter dated 11.01.2012 was obtained by coercion.

8. To complete the narration, the wife filed an application in I.A. No. 57 of 2014 seeking interim maintenance. By an order dated 06.07.2016, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-per month as interim maintenance and further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. The said order was challenged in CRP (NPD) No. 104 of 2021. This Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of the HMOP within the stipulated period and kept the revision pending till the disposal of the HMOP. Consequently, the HMOP was taken up for trial on a day-to-day basis.

9. On the side of the respondent/husband, who was the petitioner before the Trial Court, two witnesses were examined, including himself. He marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. On the side of the petitioner/wife, five witnesses were examined i.e. RW1 to RW5 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R23 were marked. The letter given by the husband, undertaking to return the aforesaid amounts and articles was marked as Ex.R15.

10. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Judge came to a conclusion that the civil revision petitioner is entitled to receive the aforesaid articles. By a judgment and decree dated 10.08.2022, the HMOP was dismissed. The husband has not preferred any appeal.

11. The wife preferred an appeal in HMCMA No. 19 of 2022 against the judgment and decree seeking a direction to the respondent/husband to return 75 sovereigns of gold, Rs.5,00,000/- received as dowry, Rs.5,00,000/- paid for purchase of a car and 11 silver articles and also for a Huge fine (compensation) that has to be determined by the Court for having presented a false divorce case against her.

12. In the said appeal, she took out an interlocutory application in I.A. No. 1 of 2