JUDGMENT

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J

1. The Appeal bearing no. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 139/2022 has been preferred by the wife, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2022 passed by the learned Family Court in Civil Suit being CS OS No.7/2019 (old CS (OS) No.04/2019), whereby the suit filed by the husband seeking declaration of title, recovery and possession in respect of suit property i.e. Maruti Alto 800 Green LXI B-S IV, Registration No. DL 8 CAL 2127, has been allowed.

2. The brief facts are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised in Arya Samaj Mandir on 20.01.2005. Due to disputes between the parties, they separated in June, 2018. The husband filed a suit bearing no. CS (OS) No. 7/2019 for Declaration of Title, Recovery and Possession, along with Permanent and Mandatory Injunction in respect of Maruti Alto

800 Green LXI B-S IV Registration No. DL8CAL2127 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’) against the wife before the learned Family Court in 2019. He had claimed that during the subsistence of their marriage, he had purchased four immovable properties and other movable properties in the name of his wife.

3. The husband averred in the said suit that the suit property in question was purchased on 01.12.2015 for a sum of Rs.3,81,313/- for which both the parties had taken a joint car loan. However, he had made all the payments for the same. According to the husband, he had paid a sum of Rs.61,313/- in cash and EMIs amounting to Rs.5,300/- were paid against the loan amount of Rs.3,20,000/-. Besides this, the amount of Insurance and Pollution Certificate was also paid by the husband. He claimed that the said property was purchased in the name of his wife to show his love and affection and to save the interest on loan lawfully and for the benefit of family as a whole.

4. In the written statement filed before the learned Family Court, the wife raised preliminary objection on the maintainability of the suit and denied that the vehicle in question was purchased by the husband. She alleged that her husband never gave her importance and denied that he had purchased the car to show his love and affection towards her. The wife averred that the vehicle i.e. the car, was purchased from the money by selling her jewellery and taking help from her maternal home. She averred that her brother and sister-in-law gave her cash amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which the husband deposited in his bank account and later withdrew to purchase the car. The wife pleaded that this vehicle was the only source of transport to take the children to the school and if the suit of husband is allowed, it would hamper study of their children. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the learned Family Court framed the following issues:-

“(i) Whether the present is maintainable in its present form ? (OPP) (ii) Whether the plaintiff Is entitled for decree of declaration as prayed ? (OPP) (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession as prayed? (OPP) (iv) Whether the plaintiff - is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? (OPP) (v) Whether the plaintiff, is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for? (OPP)”

5. In support of his case, the husband examined himself as PW-1; Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Mayur Vihar as PW-2 and Branch Manager, SBI SRCC Branch as PW-3. The wife examined herself as DW-1 in the said suit.

6. The learned Family Court on the basis of evidence led by the parties, decided the afore-noted issues in its judgement and decree dated

23.04.2022, while holding as under:-

“Issue No.1 In the present case, the wife is owner of car and property was purchased for the welfare of whole family. In view of the judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, I am of the view that the present suit is maintainable in its present form. The plaintiff is able to prove this issue. Accordingly, the issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the de