The trial court correctly ordered the return of marital articles, affirming the principle that property claims should be addressed equitably during divorce proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

R.KALAMATHI, J

This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the husband against the order passed in I.A.No.10 of 2016 in H.M.O.P.No.86 of 2014, dated 16.09.2021, on the file of Family Court, Tiruvallur for an order to return gold jewels, silver and other Sreedhana articles to the wife.

2. During the pendency of H.M.O.P for divorce filed by the wife in H.M.O.P.No.86 of 2014, the Petitioner/wife moved an application to order for return of articles as per the schedule of properties shown in the petition, by her husband.

3. It has been averred that she returned from her matrimonial home leaving her 103 sovereigns of gold jewelry, 9.75 kgms of silver articles gifted by her parents and she prays to return of those articles from her husband.

4. It is counteracted by filing a counter affidavit by the husband that the jewels were given to the religious mentor by his wife and therefore, there is no question of return of articles by him and sought for dismissal of the Petition.

5. In the schedule, the property shown in the petition are extracted hereunder:

6. The Petitioner-wife had filed petition in H.M.O.P.No.86 of 2014 for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 on the ground of cruelty, whereas, the husband had filed H.M.O.P.No.35 of 2015 to order restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT .

7. The above said H.M.O.Ps and I.A filed for return of articles were clubbed together and common evidence was let in and by way of common order, the Petition filed by the wife for divorce was allowed by granting an order of divorce on the ground of cruelty and petition filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed and in I.A.No.19 of 2016 filed by the Petitioner/wife, it is ordered to return the articles by the husband. Against this part of the order in S.A.No.19 of 2016, this Civil Revision Petition has been preferred.

8. At trial, the Petitioner wife examined herself as P.W.1 and nine documents have been marked. On the respondent side, the respondent has examined himself as R.W.1 and the Secretary of Iyyappanthangal Town Cooperative Society was examined as R.W.2 and eight documents have been marked.

9. It has come on record through P.W.1 during cross-examination that she kept her jewels in the bank locker, whereas, R.W.1 would state that the Petitioner wife has taken away the jewels including the jewels he purchased, in the year 2012 itself. The Secretary of the relevant Cooperative society has been examined as R.W.1(K.Murugan, son of Kalliappan). It is his evidence that the locker is taken in the co-operative society in the name of both Kamalatchi and Ravikumar(either or survivor) and among both persons, anybody may operate the locker. Whomever goes may affix their signature and he or she is permitted to operate the locker. The relevant Register is Ex.P8. As regards the governing Rules, it is his evidence that it is not known as to what are all the items taken or kept inside the locker. From a close perusal of Record/Attendance Register pertaining to the Petitioner and respondent, in the year 2007, on four occasions, the Petitioner and the respondent together have operated the locker, more specifically, from 31.5.2010, the Petitioner alone has operated the locker. Lastly on 12.11.2012, she has opened the locker and thereafter it was not operated at all. As per the rules and regulations, what is kept inside the locker and what is taken out will only be known to the parties to the locker at the relevant point of time. Therefore, based on the testimony of R.W.2, though from 31.5.2010 to 12.11.2013, the Petitioner/wife alone has operated