IMPORTANT POINT
Stridhan is a property of marriage and dispute relating to Stridhan comes in arena of Section 7 of Family Courts Act, 1984.

M.K. Mudgal, J.— By filing this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, appellants/defendants have challenged the validity and legality of the judgment and decree dated 20.2.2004 passed by the Court of II Additional District Judge Gwalior in Civil Suit No.53A of 2001 whereby, partly allowing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff no.1 the trial Court has awarded Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the entire money as ‘Stridhan’. In this appeal, the appellants are referred as ‘defendants’ and respondents as ‘plaintiffs’.

2. The admitted facts are as follows :

(I). Smt. Suneeta plaintiff no.1 and Hari Babu Shivhare (now deceased) were married on 6.6.1991 at Gwalior. Out of their wedlock, Shashank plaintiff no.2 was born. Hari Babu Shivhare died on 2.8.1999 in a jeep accident.

3. Facts in brief of the plaint are that the parents of the plaintiff no.1 had given Rs.1,00,000/- along with chain and ring made of gold, scooter and other articles at the time of ring ceremony. Besides other gold ornaments as ear-rings, bangles, necklace and other articles mentioned in para 2 of the plaint were given by her parents at the time of marriage. Apart from this, some articles were also given by her inlaws to her in the marriage. The total cost of the said articles has been estimated at Rs.1,50,000/- by the plaintiff no.1 in para 9 of the plaint. The plaintiff no.1 has further alleged that she is residing with her parents at Gwalior because, she was forced to leave her in-laws house by the defendants after the death of her husband. All the articles including money given in the marriage to the plaintiff no.1 are her Stridhan which were in possession of the defendants. Hence, the suit for recovery of Stridhan was filed by the plaintiff on 1.5.2000 against the defendants.

4. Denying the allegations of the plaint, the defendants have submitted that the plaintiff’s parents (no.1) gave only Rs.10,000/- at the time of ring ceremony. Neither Rs.1,00,000/- nor gold ornaments referred in the plaint were given by the them to the plaintiff no.1. The defendants have, further, stated that they had given to the plaintiff no.1 Suneeta a few gold ornaments in the marriage which are still in her possession. The scooter given by her parents was in her custody and it was also sold by her. The defendants have, further, pleaded that all the articles given to her by her parents and by them are in her possession and thus, nothing remains in the possession of the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff no.1 is not entitled to get any relief from the defendants as claimed by her in the plaint.

5. The learned trial Court after framing 11 issues and after recording evidence of both the parties and having discussed the recorded evidence in detail, has decreed the suit partly by the impugned judgment and decree as stated earlier.

6. The following question arises for consideration in this appeal :

(I) Whether, the learned trial Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit?

7. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record.

8. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants has pointed out only one aspect of the case I.e. the jurisdiction of the trial Court. The learned Senior Counsel has strenuously argued that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the Family Court Act (referred to ‘the Act’) came into force in Madhya Pradesh in 1986 I.e. 14.11.1986. As per contention of learned counsel under Section 7 of the said Act, the exclusive jurisdiction has been given to the Family Court to entertain the matters relating to property involved in a marriage. Stridhan comes under the purview of ‘property’. The learned Senior counsel has cited the following judgments in his submission.

“(i). Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another, AIR 1985 SC 628;

(ii). K.A.Abdul Jaleel v. T.A.Shahida, 2003 (3) MPLJ 524;

(iii). Sanjay Kumar Sharma v. Smt. Vidy