Matrimonial Courts can dispose of exclusive property presented at marriage under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

1. This case involves diverse emotions - from happiness to disappointment and then determination to start new life. It also involves the interpretation and scope of S.27 of Hindu Marriage Act (the Act) as well as jurisdiction of the matrimonial Courts to dispose of exclusive property of the spouses.

2. FACTS

Smt. Laxmi Devi (the wife) was married with Sri Hemant Kumar (the husband) on 30th April 1996. The marriage was not successful. It did not last long; it was not even consummated. According to wife her husband was already having physical relationship with one Sushri Sunita Pathak and continued to have it even after the marriage. Few meetings were held for settlement of dispute between the parties but were unsuccessful. The wife filed a petition for divorce under S.13 of the Act on the ground of adultery and cruelty. She also prayed for relief for return of the goods / amount given at the time of marriage and apart from her husband, impleaded her father - in - law and Sunita Pathak in the suit. The defendants denied the case of the wife. The Court below framed necessary issues. The wife examined herself (P.W. 1) and produced two witnesses namely her brother Sri Ram (P.W. 2) and one Shri Mool Chand Gupta (P.W. 3). The defendants examined Hemant Kumar (D.W. 1), one Juggi Lal (D.W. 2) real Mausa of the husband and one Shri Shiv Prakash Kushwaha (D.W. 3) cousin of the husband. The Court below recorded the following findings;

l The husband was having relationship of husband and wife with Sunita Pathak since before the marriage and has continued the same even after it.

l The marriage was not consummated.

l The husband is guilty of cruelty.

l The wife has justifiable reasons to live separately from the husband.

l The goods mentioned in item Nos. 4 and 5 of the plaint and Rs. 75,000/- cash were given at the time of marriage.

On the basis of aforesaid finding, the Court below decreed the suit for divorce and for return of Rs. 75,000/- in cash and goods mentioned at item numbers 4 and 5 of the plaint.

3. The husband and his father have filed this appeal against that part of decree by which the Court below has ordered return of cash and goods mentioned at item Nos. 4 and 5 of the plaint. The wife has filed cross - objection against that part of decree by which the Court has refused to grant decree for the return of the cash and goods mentioned at item Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 of the plaint. Neither the finding of the Court below that the husband continued to have husband - wife relationship with Sunita Pathak has been challenged in this appeal, nor any one has challenged the decree of divorce granted by the Court below.

4. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

We have heard Sri Salil Kumar Rai counsel for the appellants and Sri R. N. Bhalla, counsel for Laxmi Devi (Plaintiff - respondent). Following points arises for determination in this case :

(i) Whether the wife is entitled to return of cash and goods?

Whether the return of cash and the goods (mentioned at item Nos. 4 and 5 of the plaint) has been decreed on the basis of inadmissible evidence?

(ii) Whether the goods ordered to be returned are not specific and no decree ought to have been passed?

(iii) Whether the cash / goods were exclusive property of the wife? Whether the Court below had jurisdiction to decree return of the cash / goods?

5. POINT NO. 1 : THE FINDING REGARDING CASH / GOODS IS CORRECT

The counsel for the appellants submitted that the Court below has decreed the return of cash and goods on the basis of photostat copy of minutes of panchayat dated 15-7-1997 : it is secondary evidence and cannot be r