The central legal point established in the judgment is that even if a property is exclusively owned by the wife, it may still constitute joint property and be subject to the court's jurisdiction under Sec.27 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 13th August, 1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, whereby, upon an application under Sec.27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act), the appellant has been directed to return ornaments and cash, valuing Rs.80,000/- to the respondent-wife.

2. The brief resume of the facts is that the appellant and respondent got married on 20th November, 1988. However, on account of matrimonial discord, the respondent-wife filed a petition under Sec.13 of the Act for dissolution of their marriage. In the said petition, the appellant-husband was proceeded against ex-parte and a decree of divorce dated 14th February, 1992 was granted in favour of the respondent-wife. Vide the same judgment and order, petition under Sec.27 of the Act was also decided and the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,35,413.40 to the respondent-wife towards the value of the articles retained by him. The appellant moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the afore-stated ex-parte judgment and decree. The learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, vide his order dated 8th August, 1994 refused to set aside the ex-parte decree of divorce, however, the order passed on the application under Sec.27 of the Act, was set aside after holding that the appellant had no knowledge or information of the said application.

3. There is no dispute that the ex-parte decree of divorce between the parties has attained finality as the same was not further assailed by the appellant.

4. The application under Sec.27 of the Act has been readjudicated by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak and vide the impugned order dated 13th August, 1995, it has been allowed to the extent that the appellant has been directed to pay a lump-sum amount of Rs.80,000/- towards the value of `ornaments as also the cash within a period of three months, failing which the respondent has been held entitled to recover the same with interest @12% per annum from the date of judgment.

5. Aggrieved, the appellant-husband has filed this appeal.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order as well as records of the case with their assistance.

7. The appellants main contention is that no petition in relation to the recovery of "ornaments" is maintainable under Sec.27 of the Act. It is contended that the property, namely, "ornaments" was not a `joint property of the husband and wife which is a condition precedent to entertain a petition under Sec.27 of the Act. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of (i) Pratibha Rani V/s. Suraj Kumar and Anr. as well as the judgments of this Court in the cases of (i) Vinod Kumar Sethi and Ors. V/s. State of Punjab and Ors. (ii) Sumer Chand V/s. Bimla Rani (1996-1) PLR, 453, (iii) Vijay Kumar Duggal V/s. Kamlesh Kumari 2005 (2) RCR (Civil), 271, and (iv) Suresh Kumar V/s. Smt. Saroj Bala Similarly, he has also referred to a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Anju Bhargava V/s. Rajesh Bhargava 1986 (2) HLR, 393 as well as of the Madras High Court in the case of V. B. Jaganathan V/s. A. R. Srividhya 1998 (1) MLJ, 428.

8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently contends that the appellant has failed to prove that the "ornaments" were gifted for the exclusive use of the respondent or none of them was meant for the appellant. It is argued that the "ornaments" having been gifted at the time of marriage and being an addition to the familys properties, these ornaments were their "joint property". It is also pointed out that in addition to the `ornaments, several other items are also sought to be recovered, therefore, a common petition for recovery thereof is very much maintainable under Sec.27 of the Act.

9. Before adverting to the issue, a brief reference to the pleadings and evidence is necessitat