The main legal point established is that the provisions of Section 144 CPC, regarding restitution, are applicable in proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act.

M.M.S. Bedi, J.

Appellant wife has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for short 'the Act', aggrieved by order dated November 25, 2016 passed by District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, directing the appellant wife to refund a sum of Rs. 12 lacs to the respondent/husband on account of the appellant wife having opted to avoid her appearance at the stage of second motion in proceedings under Section 13-B of the Act.

2. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that the appellant and the respondent had filed a petition under Section 13 B of the Act on July 16, 2015 for divorce by mutual consent. The respondent-For husband had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 42 lacs to the appellant towards expenses of marriage, dowry articles besides future and past maintenance. He had paid a sum of Rs. 12 lacs at the time of statement of the first motion and remaining amount of Rs. 30 lacs was to be paid at the time of second motion. On January 19, 2016 when the matter was fixed for recording the statement at second motion, the appellant wife made a statement that she did not want to get divorce and wanted to reside with the respondent. This was followed by the statement made by the respondent that since she had withdrawn her consent, the respondent also withdraws the petition reserving his right to take back the amount of Rs. 12 lacs which has been paid by him towards part payment of the settled amount. The petition under Section 13 B of the Act was dismissed, followed by an application under Section 144 CPC filed by the respondent for directing the appellant to return the sum of Rs. 12 lacs which had been received by her in proceedings under Section 13 B of the Act along with interest.

3. The District Judge in the exercise of powers under Section 144 of CPC ordered by way of restitution the refund the sum of Rs. 12 lacs with an objective to place the parties in a position which they would have occupied but for the order of disposal of the proceedings under Section 13 B of the Act.

4. Appellant Pooja Mittal wife has come in appeal against the order of refund of the money. When the appeal came up for hearing on December 22, 2016, it was observed that there was no merit in the appeal but with an objective to settle the matter between the parties regarding the return of the money, the appeal had been entertained.

5. The appellant appeared in this Court on August 1, 2017 and explained the circumstances to the Court that she was unable to return the money and that the money paid to her be adjusted towards the future maintenance amount for the minor and herself. She furnished an affidavit to the effect that she had been maintaining herself w.e.f. June 2012 in addition to bringing up the minor son alone and had been paying fee of the advocates and other litigation expenses in more than 11 cases pending between the parties. The child is not maintaining good health as such she had to incur expenses on his medical treatment in addition to expenditure on medicines and other activities as such she expressed her inability to return the amount to the respondent. She claimed that amount of Rs. 12 lacs received by her on July 16, 2015 was the amount of her past and future maintenance including cost of her dowry articles. She further deposed that in case she is required to pay any amount to the respondent, the same may be adjusted towards future maintenance amount for the minor child and her maintenance as till date only a sum of Rs. 20000/- has been paid as maintenance expenses by the respondent-husband.

6. As mentioned hereinabove, the appeal was held to be without merit on the very first date of hearing.

7. Counsel for the appellant had made an attempt to press for the adjudication of the appeal on merits claiming that the appellant has got a right to file an appeal against any order passed by the matrimonial Court under the Family Courts Act. The validity of the impugned order has been challenged on the