Review petition against an order in a matrimonial first appeal concerning return of Stridhan and money transferred to the husband's account. The court held no manifest error or new fact was shown, review being confined to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 / 4
2024:CGHC:43283-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
REVP No. 190 of 2024
... Petitioner
Versusq
... Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey,J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal,J.
Order on Board
Per Rajani Dubey, J.
07.11.2024
the order dated 09.08.2024 passed in First Appeal (Mat.) No.
2 / 4
245/2022 contending that while passing the order dated 09.08.2024, the relevant documents and material placed on record were not considered. He submits that appellant/petitioner filed this First Appeal (Mat.) against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court dated 15.11.2022 passed in Civil Suit No. 29-A/2019 whereby the learned Family Court, Jashpur allowed the application under Section 13 (A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent/husband for grant of decree of divorce and also directed the respondent/husband to pay Rs. 5 lakhs and return the steel almirah, mixy, double bed, cooler, dressing table, LED TV and utensils. But, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that at the time of marriage parents of appellant/wife had given gifts, LED T.V., utensils, and some other furnitures and an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) deposited in the bank account of respondent/husband and all Stridhan amounting to Rs. 9 lakhs had been given to the respondent/husband, therefore, appellant/wife is entitled to get back the said Stridhan and at the time of final argument petitioner/review petitioner categorically submits his grievance against order, but this Court while passing the impugned order did not consider Ex. D-4 which clearly shown that the petitioner and her family members have transferred the amount in the bank of the respondent. So, the petitioner is duly entitled to get refund of the said amount. So, the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 may be reviewed by directing the respondent to refund the Stridhan
3 / 4
and the amount transferred by the petitioner and her family members in the bank account in the interest of justice.
4 / 4
(See: Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmala Kumar Chowdhary , reported in AIR 1995 SC 455 , Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others , reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650 and Sasi (D) through
LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others , reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692 .
Sd/Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
(Rajani Dubey) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge
Uttej
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the review petition disclosed any error apparent or new facts warranting review of the order dated 09.08.2024 in the matrimonial first appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmala Kumar ChowdharyRelied on¶6
AIR 1995 SC 455 · Who else cites this
Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and othersRelied on¶6
AIR 2000 SC 1650 · Who else cites this
Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and othersRelied on¶6
(2017) 4 SCC 692 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Chhaya Gupta
Dheeraj Gupta
Rajani Dubey
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
