Advocates:
['VIMLESH BAJPAI', '', 'NIRUPAMA BAJPAI', 'KRISHNA KUMAR DEWANGAN']

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Reserved on 09.05.2018

Delivered on 14.05.2018

First Appeal (Misc.) No. 53 of 2015

(Arising out of judgment and decree dated 30.01.2015 of the Additional District Judge,

Sarangarh in Civil Suit No. 4A/2015)

• Smt. Priyanka W/o Prince Agrawal, D/o Anil grawal Aged About 25 Years R/o

Champa, Tahsil And District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

---- Appellant

Versus

• Prince S/o Pawan Kumar Agrawal Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Sarangarh,

Raigarh Road, Sarangarh, Tahsil-Sarangarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh,

Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

And

First Appeal (Misc.) No.

54 of 2015

• Smt. Priyanka W/o Prince Agrawal, D/o Anil Agrawal Aged About 25 Years At

Present R/o At Champa Tahsil And District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

---- Appellant

Versus

• Prince S/o Pawan Kumar Agrawal Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Sarangarh,

Raigarh Road, Sarangarh, Tahsil-Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh,

Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

For Appellant

:

Smt. Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate

For Respondent

:

Shri Aditya Bharadwaj, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Sharad Kumar Gupta, Judge

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

1.

As these appeals arise from a single judgment, they are being

disposed off by this common judgment.

2.

In these appeals, the challenge is levied to the judgment and decree

dated 30.01.2015 of the Additional District Judge, Sarangarh Distt. Raigarh,

2

Chhattisgarh in Civil Suit No. 4A/2015 to the extent that allegedly he has

given the finding that appellant had subjected respondent with cruelty, and

she is not entitled to get the property / Stridhan described in Schedule A of

the plaint.

3.

This is admitted by respondent that name, address and other

particulars shown in the title of the petition are correct, both the parties are

hindu and governed by Mitakshara Branch of Hindu Law, marriage of both

the parties was solemnised on 11.05.2011 in accordance hindu religion and

Marwadi rites and rituals at Sarangarh. She is living in her maternal house

since 28.08.2011. She had lodged the report in police station Sarangarh

regarding dowry harassment. A case was registered against him and his

family members under Section 498A IPC.

4.

In brief, the appellant's case is that seven lakh rupees cash, ornaments

of silver and gold, clothes and other properties were given to respondent as

dowry which are shown in Article A. After the marriage respondent and his

family members started to harass her on account of dowry. On 29.09.2011,

he ousted her.

5.

In brief, the respondent's case is that this Court has no jurisdiction to

order of returning back of Stridhan. Appellant was not taking interest in

domestic work and frequently used to go in her maternal house. On

28.08.2011 she voluntarily went in her maternal house.

6.

After conclusion of the trial of Civil Suit No. 4A/2015 filed by appellant

and Civil Suit 12A/2014 filed by respondent, the trial Court disposed them off

by aforesaid common judgment. Being aggrieved, appellant preferred these

appeals.

7.

Smt. Nirupama Bajpai, counsel for the appellant vehemently argued

3

that in Civil Suit No. 4A/2015, divorce granted to appellant but the trial Court

given the finding that appellant treated respondent with cruelty. Stridhan is

her exclusive property, but trial Court committed error by not ordering for its

return to appellant. Thus, the aforesaid judgment and decree may be set

aside on the point of cruelty and Stridhan.

8.

Shri Aditya Bharadwaj, counsel for the respondent argued that the trial

Court had not given any finding about cruelty committed by appellant,

Stridhan is out of purview of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

(hereinafter called as ' the Act of 1955'), thus, appeals may be dismissed.

9.

First and foremost question for adjudication before this Court is that,

whether the trial Court has committed gross illegality while allegedly giving

the finding that appellant had committed cruelty wi