Allowed

Smt. Ram Bai Tiwari and Ors, v. Smt. Sudha Tiwari

Chhattisgarh HC5 Mar 2011WP227/5185/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court under Article 226 set aside an impugned order of a Family Court that directed attachment of one room of the petitioners' house instead of ordering return of Stree Dhan offered upon demand under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order directing attachment of one room of petitioners' house was set aside; respondent permitted to take articles offered by petitioners.

Smt. Ram Bai Tiwari and Ors, Vs Smt. Sudha Tiwari — Matrimonial and Divorce | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

nirF

¶2

'i^Rs S ^ ;? /-r^^'^-<.l^-.._^a s: "c'u'KH^^^.^?? SSE-liErs, 9

¶3

IN THE HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURL4T BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227)J^IO. S^%> OF 2010

¶4

PETITIONERS 1. Smt. Ram Bai Tiwari,widow of (Non-applicants) Late Devi Prasad Tiwari, aged about 65 years

¶5

•&

¶6

Of^
^^y/ 'xc'' /.
{^' ^ AP
^
'^'^'..(^

¶7

Smt. Sunita Pandey, wife of Shri Jai Shankar Pandey, aged about 40 years.

¶8

Jai Shankar Pandey, son of Shri Rajdev Pandey, aged about 45 years.

¶9

All the petitioners are residents of Village Bodla, P.S. Bodla, District Kawardha (Kabirdham) (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

¶11

ESPONDENT Ipplicant)

¶12

Smt. Sudha Tiwan', widow of Late Shri Anil Tiwari, aged 30 years, resident of Quarter No.5-1-1, Road No.37, Zone-2, Sector-11, Bhilai Khursipaar, bistrict Durg (C6)

¶13

PETITION UN&ER ARTICLE 227 OF THE

¶14

CONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA

¶15

¶16

)T DCTiTOThi's» s s s i'wi'y %&s,s.'9'97ts i'^i'^^-MfS •;."fiS^ is^.uinf9j-j-if^iij ^^ 3 g S i 5ti«^i "y i O'fUl.r*ftT ^^--^n.s^iu *^^ S/t^S'^i s^^".iy'VciUA f/^t 5'; /^.T^.F"^HU <fti V (iTi 'V '^ s^-s °ss ^r'ip HM^^UlSlJ»^^s^f^ i othgrs. u^ d SU^

¶17

Smt. Sudhs Tiwsri

¶18

sApRllsant)

¶19

WR!T PETiTION UNDER ARTiCLE 227 OF THE 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA sUH Ui^B -^t ^l'Sl£falnt 5*'

¶20

: Shri Malay Shrivastava, counsel for the petitloners. Shri Uttam Pandey, counse! forthe respondent.

¶21

'assed on 5m day of S

¶22

By way of this petition, the order dated 03-04-2010 passed by iearned Second Additiona! Principat Judge, Famiiy Court, Dur£ in Clvii Suif N0.103-A/2009 is called in question bv the petltioners/non-sppiicants.'

¶23

¶24

Bner racis or ine csse are as unaer:

¶25

The petitioners/non-appiicants moved an application under ^tion 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as •f-.^ .ciiUf-^^ f^^^'lIM 'the Act') 'or return of Stree Dhan mentioned in Sch< with the application. The peiitioners denled the existence of Stree Dhan described in Scheduie-A, but offered to return aii the artlcles described in Schedule-B annexed with written statement Vide impugned order, the triai Court directed for attachment of one room of petitionsrs' house in which articies described in Schedu'e-B are to be kept instead of retuming if fo the . respondent.

¶26

•w'. o, Learned counsei for the respondent submits that she Has no room to keep the above articles. Learned counse! for the respondent was unabis to show any provision under Section 27

¶27

^o y

¶28

'""" *sti :.^ 1 ./y 9j? ^.-^' ../y

¶29

of the Act and under the Family CcfUrt's Act suthorizing the Famiiy Court to pass such order.

¶30

At the best, the Famiiy Court should have passed the order for retu'n of the articies pending decision of respondent's applicatiori but the order directing attachment of one roorn of the petitioners' house for kseping the articles described in Scheduie-B, is totaiiy iltegai and unwarranted. Therefore, the order impugned is set aside.

¶31

However, the respondent, if so advised, may take those artlcles offered by the petitioners.

¶32

Sd/N.K. Agrawal Judge

¶33

Smt. Ram Bai Tiwari and Ors, v. Smt. Sudha Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ram Bai Tiwari and Ors, v. Smt. Sudha Tiwari

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

Gandeshwar Pradhan Vs Ps.Netam and Ors.

Baldev Verma Vs State of Chhattisghar and Ors.

Bhula Vs Manharan Singh Thakur and Ors.

Tejram Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Prateek Khare Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Neetlal and Another Vs Sanjeet Kumar Bhaskar and Others