IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF ON THE 16^th OF FEBRUARY, 2024 FIRST APPEAL No. 432 of 2010 BETWEEN:-

1. SMT. VANDANA TIWARI W/O SHRI MANISH TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RAVI SHANKAR WARD, CHAMELI CHOWK, P.S. MOTI NAGAR, TAH. & DISTT.

SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (BY MS. KAMLESH TAMRAKAR - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. MANISH TIWARI S/O SHRI YOGENDRA TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, BEHIND PALOTAN GANJ SCHOOL, LAXMIPURA WARD, SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI ASHISH SHARMA – ADVOCATE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Vinay Saraf passed the following:

JUDGMENT

Judgment and Decree passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Sagar in Civil Suit No. 97A/09 on 11.05.2010 is assailed by appellant/wife to the extent of amount awarded under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short “HM Act”) with a prayer to enhance it. Decree of divorce passed under Section 13(1)(i-b) of HM Act has not been challenged by either party and same has attained finality.

2. The sole question involves in present appeal is as to whether grant of Rs.

25,000/- to wife needs any enhancement or not?

3. Since issue lies in a narrow compass as the only prayer for enhancement of amount of Rs. 25,000/- granted under Section 27 of HM Act has been made, with the consent of parties, matter is heard finally.

4. Ms. Kamlesh Tamrakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/ wife submits that appellant was married to respondent as per Hindu Rites and Rituals at Sagar on 18.05.2001 and at the time of marriage, several articles including gold ornaments and cash valued to Rs. 7,95,700/- were presented and handed over to respondent for the benefit of spouse, which belongs jointly to both of them and, therefore, learned Family Court has committed error in awarding only Rs. 25,000/- under Section 27 of HM Act. Learned counsel for appellant prays for modification/ enhancement of amount.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has supported the judgment and submits that no case of interference is made out. He further submits that appellant has failed to prove that articles mentioned in schedule annexed to divorce application were actually belongs jointly to husband and wife. Learned counsel for respondent prays for dismissal of appeal.

6. From the perusal of record, it appears that learned Family Court has passed the decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. Appellant filed the list of articles, ornaments, cash etc. along with application. Respondent denied receipt and existence of articles in written statement. Appellant exhibited several bills of various articles as Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/24, passbook of her mother Ex. P/25, photographs Ex. P/26 to P/32 along with CD. Appellant deposed in her chief- examination regarding handing over of various articles to respondent for the purpose of their use. She stated that ornaments, cash and motorcycle along with other articles were handed over to respondent. Mother of appellant Smt. Krishna Bai has also examined and stated that after withdrawing Rs.1,30,000/- from her account on 12.04.2001 maintained with Bank of India (Ex.P/25) she arranged the articles for handing over to respondent for joint use of spouse. Motorcycle was purchased in name of respondent for Rs. 43,450/-, gold ornaments were purchased amounting to Rs. 48,720/- from shop of Jweller Yogendra Saraf (PW- 3), who also supported statement of appellant and proved bill of his shop Ex. P/14 whereby, he sold ornaments having weight around 10 grams gold to mother of appellant.

7. Respondent in his statement before Family Court denied allegations in chief-examination however, in para 12 of his cross-examination accepted that Rs. 50001/- cash, suit length were received by him at the time of lagun and other articles were including godrej almirah, utensils,