IMPORTANT POINT
Independent proceeding under Section 27 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, without there being any main petition pending under any other provision of Act 1955, is not maintainable.

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.—The short question arising for determination in this appeal is whether an independent proceeding for return of Streedhan under section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth ‘the Act, 1955’) is maintainable when no other matrimonial proceeding between the parties has ever been decided or pending.

2. As projected in the petition under section 27 of the Act, 1955 preferred by the appellant, the parties were married on 9.5.2011, however, on account of dispute between the couple, the appellant lodged an FIR for offence under section 498-A, I.P.C. against the husband and his relatives as also a separate proceeding under section 125, Cr.P.C., 1973 for grant of maintenance. There is no pleading that any proceeding under the Act, 1955 has ever been initiated by any of the parties.

3. The Family Court has dismissed the appellant’s application as not maintainable on the reasoning that an independent proceeding under section 27 of the Act, 1955 would not lie.

4. Shri R.S. Patel, learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that even if no matrimonial proceeding is decided or pending, the Family Court would still have jurisdiction to decide the question of return of Streedhan on merits and nothing prohibits the Family Court to exercise such jurisdiction.

5. Per contra, Shri Prasoon Agrawal, learned Counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order.

6. Before proceeding to dwell on the issue, it would be apt to refer to the provisions contained in section 27 of the Act, 1955, it reads thus :

“27. Disposal of property. - In any proceeding under this Act, the Court may make such 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.”

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.

8. If the authorities are to be found for the above proposition, we may refer to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam v. Sangeeta Balkrishna Kadam, AIR 1997 SC 3562 which says that section 27 provides an alternative remedy to the wife so that she can recover the property, which is covered by the section, by including it in the decree in the matrimonial proceeding, without having to take recourse to the filing of a separate civil suit and avoid further litigation.

9. In FAM No. 5/2008, Sanjay Kumar Manu v. Shrimati Urmila Manu, decided on 13.7.2010 by one of us (Prashant Kumar Mishra), a similar view as has been taken that an independent proceeding under section 27 of the Act, 1955 has not been contemplated from the language contained in section 27 of the Act, 1955. It is held thus in paragraph 11:

“(11) On the basis of what has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Single Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court it would appear that an independent p