2025:CGHC:20128-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR FA (MAT) No. 338 of 2024  Smt. Tanuja, W/o Dinesh Kumar, aged 26 years, Gond Tribal, R/o Shivnagar, Kanker, Tahsil and District – Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.).

---- Appellant Versus  Dinesh Kumar, S/o Lt. Shri Bihari Lal Dhruv, aged 28 years, Gond Tribal, R/o Uday Nagar, Tahsil and District – Uttar Bastart Kanker (C.G.)

---- Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Priyanka Shukla, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Shreyansh Pathak, Advocate through V.C.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey &

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput (Judgment on Board) Per Rajani Dubey, J.

02.05.2025

1. The present appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by the applicant/wife against the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2024 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.), in Misc. Civil Suit No.02-A/2023 whereby, application preferred by the applicant/wife for retrieval her Stree-dhan, was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated fact of the case are that marriage of applicant/wife was solemnized with the non-applicant/husband on 16.02.2020 according to Tribal Gondwana customs at village Shivnagar, Kanker (C.G.). After the marriage and during her stay in in-law’s house, she was harassed by non-applicant/husband, his mother and sister. On 20.12.2020, such a situation arose that on the occasion of her birthday she was compelled to come to her parental home in Shivnagar, Kanker, and is staying at her parental house. It was also pleaded that a case being Criminal Case No.665/2021 under Sections 498, 323, 34 of IPC against non-applicant/husband, his mother and sister is also pending before the trial Court. It was also pleaded that applicant/wife has the right over articles given to her at the time of marriage as Stree-dhan. It was not possible for the applicant/wife and non-applicant/husband to live together as husband and wife and lead a married life, therefore, applicant/wife submitted the application for return of Stree-

dhan from non-applicant/husband.

3. The non-applicant/husband was ex-parte before the Family Court.

4. The learned Family Court, after examining oral and documentary evidence, recorded its finding that the non- applicant/husband was ex-parte in the case, as such, the statement of applicant/wife could not be refuted. The learned Family Court also recorded its finding that both the parties are member of Gond Scheduled Tribe and according to the provision of Section 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, until the Central Government declares by notification that the Hindu Marriage Act shall be applicable to the Scheduled Tribes within the meaning of clause 25 of Article 366 of the Constitution, the Hindu Marriage Act shall not be applicable to the members of Gond Tribe community, in-fact, Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act would not be applicable in relation to the property between the parties to the case. In any case, Section 27 of the Act is applicable only at the time of decree of divorce and separate application is not maintainable. The learned Family Court has also recorded its finding that the applicant/wife has filed an application for return of Stree-dhan without mentioning any provision, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Family Court as given in Section 7 of the Family Court Act, 1984, and dismissed the application.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant/wife submits that the impugned order is unsustainable in law and based on erroneous facts. The learned Family Court has erred in considering the application of the appellant under Section

27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, whereas the appellant has not referred to the said section, or the said Act anywhere in her application. The application by the appellant for return of the appellant’s property ought to have been considered by the learned Judge as an independent application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is maintainable under Explanation (c) of Section 7 of the Fa