Independent applications under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be entertained without an ongoing matrimonial proceeding, as established by the court's ruling.

JUDGMENT :

Arindam Sinha, J.

1. Mr. Shalvin, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant and on 15th May, 2025, with reference to earlier order dated 16th April, 2025, had handed up demand draft no.026265 dated 23rd April, 2025 issued by Central Bank of India in favour of respondent, for Rs.1 lac. He submitted, Rs. 6 lacs was earlier paid. That he is ready to proceed with hearing of the appeal. Mr. Diwakar Tiwari assisted by Mr. Gyanendra Singh, learned advocates appearing on behalf of respondent, on query had confirmed, Rs.6 lacs was earlier paid to his client by appellant.

2. The appeal stands preferred against judgment dated 31^st March, 2022 directing appellant to pay Rs.10,54,364/- in lieu of returning 'stree dhan’ articles. We have ascertained, the marriage stood subsequently dissolved on judgment dated 1^st May, 2023 of the Family Court. Prior to that respondent had filed application dated 13^th May, 2015 and obtained order dated 11^th August, 2017 directing payment of maintenance under section 125 in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Appellant earlier paid Rs. 6 lacs and had handed up said demand draft for payment of another Rs. 1 lac.

3. Submission on behalf of appellant is, impugned judgment was made invoking provision in section 27 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It allows for inclusion of such provisions in the decree with respect to joint property, presented at or about the time of marriage. There cannot be an independent order made under the provision. The marriage stood dissolved on judgment dated 1^st May, 2023. There was no direction for maintenance nor any direction regarding 'stree dhan'. Such direction could only be made in decree passed in the proceeding for dissolution of the marriage but not otherwise.

4. Mr. Shalvin relies on view taken by a Division Bench in the High Court of Chhattisgarh on judgment dated 12^th September, 2017 reported in 2018 AIR Chh 40 ( Babita @ Gyatri V/s ModPrasad @ Pintu ), paragraph 7 (Lawsuit print). Said paragraph is reproduced below.

"[7] The expression used in the above quoted provision contained in Section 27 of the Act, 1955 would explicit, on a bare reading, that the Court may make provisions in the decree as it deems just and proper with respect to any property presented, at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife. When any matrimonial proceeding under the Act is not decided between the parties, the provision does not clothe the Court with jurisdiction to entertain an independent application under Section 27 of the Act without there being any further proceeding under the Act as contemplated in Section 9 to 13 and 13-A and 13-B of the Act, 1955. The provision has been made with an intent to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to entitle the wife to move application for return of Streedhan properties in the same proceedings, in which a matrimonial dispute has been brought to the Court for adjudication. However, Section 27 itself has not been considered to be a separate and independent matrimonial proceeding so as to entitle the Court to entertain such independent application under Section 27 of the Act, 1955."

(emphasis supplied)

Mr. Shalvin submits further, the Family Court, in impugned judgment, had recorded that the incident of respondent being thrown out of the house happened on 24^th November, 2014, when allegedly his client forcibly snatched jewellery, beat and tortured and threw her out of the house. Respondent, in her written statement, had att