C A V Judgment

Per Rajani Dubey J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/defendants against the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.63-A/2016, whereby the suit of the plaintiff/respondent under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been allowed. (The parties herein shall be referred as per their status before the Trial Court.)

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed an application for return of stridhan property under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as the Act of 1955). It has been averred that the marriage between the appellant No.1 husband and the respondent wife was solemnized as per Hindu Rites on 12.05.2013 at Baikunthpur, Koriya, whereas the appellant no.2 is the father-in-law of the respondent. it has further been averred that at the time of marriage and allied ceremonies, various properties were gifted, which has been described in Schedule A. B & C of the plaint and shall constitute to be stridhan-property. Since the property detailed in Schedule B was not returned to the appellant, she filed the application for return of the said property. The learned Family Court after hearing the parties passed impugned judgment dated 27.07.2018 (Annexure A/1) allowed the suit of the plaintiff and consequently passed the decree for return of the stridhan property as detailed in Schedule B of the plaint/application, against which the present appeal has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned court is perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned Court has failed to appreciate the facts in its proper perspective. The learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the facts and has erred in holding that the suit of the plaintiff under Section 27 of the Act, 1955 was maintainable independently. The learned Family Court did not appreciate this fact that the defendants/appellants have already returned the various properties and also the fact that the plaintiff has already taken the various jewelleries. No proof or receipt of the property was produced by the respondent before the Family Court, but the learned Family Court has succinctly endorsed the list of property as stridhan property without appreciating the true legal import and meaning of stridhan property. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by this Court in the matters of Abhishek Pandey and another vs Sangeeta Pandey, reported in 2020 SCC Online CHH 2171, Manjit Jaiswal vs Aakriti Jaiswal, reported in 2022 SCC Online Chh 923 and Babulal Yadav vs Sonu Yadav, reported in 2023 SCC Online Chh 2815. He further submits that this Court awarded articles of Schedule-B, which are valued approximately Rs.8,69,486/- and the interest of amount is about Rs.2,48,812/-. As per execution proceedings, more than 8 Lakh rupees through cheque and deduction from salary account have already been paid to the respondent, but the learned Trial Court did not appreciate this fact that the respondent did not file receipt of all articles, which are included in Schedule-B and some amount was paid to other family members also and these amounts were not included in streedhan as such if these items are deducted from Schedule-B, then execution pending against the appellant is liable to be dismissed as whole satisfaction.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent wife strongly opposes the submission of the appellants’ counsel and submits that the learned Family Court has minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly ordered for return of streedhan with interest and more than 2 Lakh rupees is still pending for recovery so this appeal is liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maya Gopinathan vs Anoop S. B., reported in AIR 2024 SC 2454