Back
2000 Supreme(MP) 605
A.M. Sapre, J.
Rajkumar Patni
vs
Smt. Manorama Patni
Decided On : 14 July, 2000
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Stridhan property in Hindu Law, including the sources of Stridhan and the status of items given at the time of engagement, and its application in determining the wife's entitlement to claim her Stridhan property from the husband.
Headnote:
Stridhan - Family Law - Hindu Law - Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act - Manu Smriti - Stridhan property - [Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, Manu Smriti] - The court discussed the concept of Stridhan property in Hindu Law and its various sources, including gifts received by a woman before or at the time of marriage from strangers, relatives, father, mother, and brother. The judgment affirmed the finding of the Trial Court that certain articles claimed by the wife were her Stridhan property, and upheld the decree in her favor. The court also held that items given at the time of engagement (Sagai) are considered as Stridhan property of a woman, contrary to the Trial Court's ruling. The judgment modified the impugned decree in favor of the plaintiff, allowing her to claim additional items as her Stridhan property or their total value from the defendant.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between a wife and husband over the return of the wife's Stridhan property, including gold ornaments, silver articles, and other items, which the wife claimed were given to her at the time of marriage and engagement. The Trial Court partly decreed the suit in favor of the wife, leading to cross-appeals by both parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence and the law on Stridhan property in Hindu Law, affirming the Trial Court's finding that certain articles claimed by the wife were her Stridhan property and modifying the decree in her favor. The court also held that items given at the time of engagement are considered as Stridhan property of a woman, contrary to the Trial Court's ruling.
Issues: The main issue was the nature and extent of the property claimed by the wife as her Stridhan, and whether items given at the time of engagement could be considered as her Stridhan property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the evidence and the law on Stridhan property in Hindu Law, specifically addressing the sources of Stridhan and the status of items given at the time of engagement.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed in part, and the impugned decree was modified in favor of the plaintiff, allowing her to claim additional items as her Stridhan property or their total value from the defendant.
A.M. Sapre, J.
1. The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of another connected first appeal being F.A. No. 319/94 as both these appeals arise out of a common judgment and the decree. In fact they are in the nature of cross appeals - one filed by plaintiff and other by defendant. The present first appeal under Section 96 of C.P. Code is by the defendant (husband) against the judgment and decree dated 27.6.1990 passed in C.S. No. 7/88 by 1st Additional District Judge, Shajapur. In order to appreciate the factual scenerio of this litigation, it is necessary to state the facts in brief.
2. It is in fact an unfortunate litigation between the wife and husband. Plaintiff is the wife and husband is the defendant. Wife has sued her husband for return of her Stridhan property in specie, or in the alternatively its value which according to wife works out to Rs. 1,49,140/-. In short and in substance, the case of wife in her plaint was that she married to defendant on 27.2.1977 according to Hindu custom at Sarangpur. It was alleged that out of this wedlock two sons and one daughter were born. It was then alleged that off and on, the defendant (husband) used to ill-treat the wife, would make demand of dowry, would beat her. AH this hostile attitude of husband continued upto 5.9.1986 when ultimately, it went out of wife's tolerance. She was forced to withdraw from his society. It was alleged that since September, 1986, wife has been living separately with her parents alongwith her three children. It was alleged that it is no longer possible for the wife to any more continue and live with her husband. She, therefore, claimed that whatever property. she had received in her marriage and also the property which according to her is her Stridhan property which is in custody and possession of her husband i.e. defendant be returned to her. The plaintiff then gave details of these properties in para 6 of plaint which according to her was her exclusive Stridhan. Essentially on these pleadings suit was filed.
3. The husband (defendant) denied the plaint allegations. In substance, his defence was that his relations with wife i.e. plaintiff were throughout cordial. According to him, the plaintiff had gone to her parental house of her own and when he went to take her, she declined to come and said that her life with him is in danger. It was alleged that under these circumstances, the husband then filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act which is still pending. It was then alleged that so far as gift items are concerned, that cannot be treated as plaintiff's property but it has to be treated as that of husband. The defendant also denied the list of several properties set out in the plaint and alleging that only one golden ring and two silver ornaments, some stainless steel articles, some pital articles, one steel bag, furniture, table fan etc. were given. It was denied that all this property is a Stridhan property on which plaintiff can lay any legitimate claim. The defendant offered to keep wife with him. It was also alleged that neither the suit is maintainable, nor the Court where the suit is filed has jurisdiction to try it. These were essentially the pleadings which were set up by way of defence in the written statement.
4. Parties went to trial. Issues were framed on the basis of the aforementioned pleadings. Parties led essentially oral evidence. The Trial Court by impugned judgment and decree, partly decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff. It was held that plaintiff in principle entitled to claim some gold ornaments weighing 8 Tolas, 4 golden churi - weighing 6 Tolas, table fan, stainless steel items, or in alternative a money decree of Rs. 53,000/-. It is on these issues that the impugned judgment/ decree was rendered which is now challenged by both wife as also by husband. According to wife, the suit should have been decreed in its entirety whereas according to husb
