An order under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act can only be passed while passing the decree and not separately as such. Jewellery is the exclusive property of the wife and does not come within the ambit of Section 27 of the Act.

1. This judgement will also dispose of F.A.O. No. 12-M of 1987 as both these appeals arise out of order of Additional District Judge, dated 12-11-1986, passed under Sec.27 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act ).

2. This is an unfortunate dispute as a result of rupture of the marriage so happily celebrated on 25-11-1984 between Suraj Parkash wife and Mohinder Pal husband. A month after the marriage its happiness gave way to bitterness and differences developed between the couple with the result that Suraj Parkash wife filed an application under Sec.10 of the Act for a decree of judicial separation which was allowed on 17-12-1985 and later on a decree of divorce by consent was passed on 6-2-1987. During the pendency of the petition under Sec.10 of the Act, wife also moved an application under Sec.27 of the Act on 25-7-1985. Ordinarily this should have been disposed of along with the main petition filed under Sec.10 of the Act for judicial separation. However, it appears that no orders were passed on this application under Sec.27 of the Act and was subsequently decided on 12-11-1986. By virtue of the said order, the learned Additional District Judge directed the husband to return certain articles as detailed in the last para of the judgement. Dissatisfied with the said order, both the parties have filed separate appeals F.A.O. No. 239-M of 1986 has been filed by the wife whereas the other F.A.O. No. 12-M of 1987 has been filed on behalf of the husband. In the application under Sec.27 of the Act filed by the wife, it was stated that since there are no circumstances of the compromise between the parties, the dowry articles mentioned in the accompanying list may be ordered to be returned to her. In the reply filed on behalf of Mohinder Pal husband, he raised certain preliminary objections to the effect that the petition was not maintainable as the petition under Sec.27 of the Act could only be filed in a petition under Sec.13 of the Act and not under Sec.10 of the Act. Moreover, since it was alone marriage, the question of the dowry etc. did not arise. The receipt of the articles mentioned in the list attached with the application allegedly received by Mohinder Pal in the dowry at the time of his marriage was denied. It was also pleaded that the wife could not claim more than Rs. 5000.00 under the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :-

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled under Sec.27 of the Hindu Marriage Act to any articles as mentioned in the petition ? If so, its effect ? OPP

2. Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPR

3. Relief. The parties were allowed to lead evidence. Under issue No. 1, the learned trial Judge concluded that "all these circumstances, when considered collectively do go to suggest that the petitioner never trusted the respondent or her parents-in-law and kept all her jewellery with her and when she left the matrimonial home on 8-3-1985 in the absence of her husband and her parents-in-law, she carried back the same to her parents house. It has also come in evidence that while leaving the matrimonial home on 8-3-1985 she carried an attachee case or two with her. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner regarding the jewellery is dismissed."

*However, it was held that the following articles given to the petitioner in dowry are still lying with the respondent and latter was directed to return the same :-

(1) One Fridge. (2) Steel Almirah. (3) One double bed. (4) Washing Machine. (5) An iron petti containing various types of clothes. (6) 3 or 4 attachee case containing clothes for the bride and bridegroom.

4 Issue No. 2 was decided against the husband and it was held that the petition was maintainable.

5. The learned counsel for the wife appellant submitted that it has been wrongly held that the wife was not entitled to the return to the jewellery which she had left at the house of her husband. The finding of the learned