( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent against the judgment and decree dated 21-4-87 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in first Appeal No. 1 of 1986 arising out of judgment and decree dated 10-12-75 passed by District Judge, Rewa, in Civil Suit No. 24-A of 1985.

( 2 ) THE undisputed facts of this case are that the appellant filed the aforesaid civil suit in the Court of District Judge, Rewa, who granted a decree for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground of desertion. He granted permanent alimony at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month to the appellant and further granted under Section 27 of the Act an amount of Rs. 12,350/- or the articles shown in Schedule A. The husband filed an appeal before this Court only in respect of the articles or the refund of money as directed by the learned District Judge. The husband did not challenge the decree of divorce before this Court.

( 3 ) THE appellant / plaintiff had filed an application under Section 13 of the Act for grant of divorce on the ground of desertion against the respondent. Since the decree of divorce and permanent alimony were not challenged before the learned single Judge by the respondent, it is not necessary to go into those facts which resulted in passing of decree of divorce. However, the decree passed by the learned District Judge was challenged by the respondent in respect of the articles shown in Schedule A or refund of cash amounting to Rs. 12,350/ -as the price of the articles. It was alleged by the wife that the articles shown in Schedule A were given to her at the time of marriage.

( 4 ) BEFORE the learned single Judge, it was contended by the respondent that these articles did not be1ong jointly to both husband and wife within the meaning of Section 27 of the Act and, therefore, the learned District Judge had erred in granting the decree for delivery of those articles to the appellant or Rs. 12,350/- in lieu thereof. The learned single Judge has found in paragraph 4 that the articles claimed by the respondent, shown in Schedule A, attached to the application for divorce, belonged to her exclusively which was given to her at the time of her marriage by her father and they were her 'stridhan'.

( 5 ) THE learned single Judge, after considering the various cases cited before him, came to the conclusion that the property claimed by the applicant should belong both to husband and wife jointly and it should not be an exclusive property of the wife or husband alone. The learned single Judge referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, AIR 1985 SC 628 and held that the Supreme Court has conclusively expressed the opinion that 'stridhan' of a married woman was her exclusive property and even if it is placed in the custody of her husband, the husband would be deemed to be the trustee of the property and he had no right or title over that property. In the opinion of the learned single Judge, since Section 27 of the Act app1ied to the property belonging jointly to both husband and wife, it had no application to 'stridhan' in the matrimonial proceedings for divorce under the Act. The only remedy open to the wife would be to file a fresh civil suit for recovery of her 'stridhan'.

( 6 ) THERE was a sharp cleavage of opinion between the various High Courts regarding the interpretation of Section 27 of the Act. .

( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the case of Kamta Prasad v. Smt. Om Wati, AIR 1972 All 153 and Sangeeta Balkrishna Kadam v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam, AIR 1994 Bom 1. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent drew our attention to the case of Subhash Lata v. V. N. Khanna, AIR 1992 Delhi 14, Smt. Shukla v. Brij Bhushan Makkar, AIR 1982 Del 223, Anil Kumar v. Smt. Jyoti, AIR 1987 Raj 157, Smt. Rajeshbhai v. Smt. Shantabai, AIR 1982 Bom 231 and Shantaram Tukaram Pa