Allowed

Santosh Bhaiya v. Smt. Phooleshwari

Chhattisgarh HC5 Aug 2010FAM/13/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an appeal challenging a Family Court decree regarding the recovery of Stridhan. Holding that Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not cover exclusive property like Stridhan, the court set aside the impugned judgment and directed the respondent to file a separate civil suit.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree dated 4.1.2008 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Korba, in terms of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act are set aside. The respondent is directed to file a civil suit before

Santosh Bhaiya Vs Smt. Phooleshwari — Matrimonial and Divorce | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

¶1

~"-

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR

¶3

^ ^

¶4

DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI T.P.SHARMA AND HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR, JJ.

¶5

F.A.(M)No.13of2008

¶6

APPELLANT Santosh Bhaiya, aged about 25 years, NON-APPLICANT son of Shri Phool Singh Bhaiya, r/o vill. Baghaud, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Presentlv resided at : Qtr No. F-1380, H.T.P.P. Colony, Darri, Korba, Tahsil Katghora, Distt. Korba (CG)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

RESPONDENT Smt. Phooleshwari, aged about 24 APPLICANT years, wife of Shri Santosh Bhaiya, R/o Qtr. No. 525/4/A Balco nagar, Tah. And Distt. Korba (CG)

¶9

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 (1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT. 1984

¶10

Shri Roop Naik,counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhijit Sarkar, counsel for the respondent.

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶12

(Passedon 05.08.2010)

¶13

The following oral judgment of the Court was passed by T.P. Sharma, J.

¶14

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 4.1.2008 passed by the Judge, Family Court; Korba in Civil M.J.C. No.6/2007 whereby the Judge, Family Court, Korba has partly decrepd the suit for return of Stridhan to the tune of Rs.83,850/- out of claim of Rs.2,05,320/-.

¶15

2 . Shri Roop Naik, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Abhijit Sarkar, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. Judgment impugned and record of Court below perused.

¶16

The record of Court below reveals that respondent has filed the petition for return of Stridhan by affixing the court fees of Rs.20/- under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It atso appears from the record and judgment

¶17

¶18

"-'^^

¶19

and decree impugned that Court below has passed the decree probably assuming jurisdiction under Section 27 ofthe Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

¶20

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submits that noorigjnal document has been filed in support of the claim and respondent has not examined the witnesses to prove such documents. Even otherwise the documents appear to be suspicious.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in accordance with Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the respondent was entitled to claim property belonging to the respondent given at the time of marria^e which does not cover Stridhan i.e. exclusive property of respondent, therefore, he seeks to file independent civil suit for recovery of Sthdhan before the competent forum in accordance with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

¶22

Considering the prayer of respondent, limited scop.e of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act and contention of the appellant, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 4.1.2008 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Korba in limited jurisdiction in terms of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is hereby set aside. However, the respondent may file a civil suiVclaim before the competent Court having jurisdiction for recovery of Stridhan.

¶23

No orderasto costs.

¶24

Sd/T.P. Sharma Judge

¶25

Sd/~ R.L. Jhanwar Judge

¶26

A^)'<?w^

Santosh Bhaiya v. Smt. Phooleshwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Bhaiya v. Smt. Phooleshwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Bishnu Prasad Agrawal Vs M.P.State Ware Housing Corp.

Moti Lal Bhalekar Vs Mrs Kalyani Tiwari and Ors.

Smt. Shakun Bai and Others Vs Manoj Yadav

Kheer Bai Vs Padman Patel

Savita Salgotra Vs Vivek Salgotra

State Vs Shaniram