Ashutosh Dewangan Vs Smt. Savita Dewangan

Smt. Savita Dewangan, D/o Kailash Dewangan, aged 35 years, R/o Gandhi Nagar, MPEB Colony, at the house of Arjun Singh, Tah. Ambikapur, Dis. Sarguja (CG)

¶10

Permanent Address: Village, Post - Latori, Tahsil & District Ambikapur 497001.

¶11

... Respondent/Plaintiff For Appellant : Mr. Avadhesh Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent : None though served.

¶12

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, J

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

(12th February, 2025)

¶15

Per Rajani Dubey, J

¶16

Challenge in this appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is to the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2019 passed by the Family Court, Ambikapur,

¶17

2

¶18

Distt. Surguja in Civil Suit No.158-A/2016 whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant for return of stridhan has been allowed with cost and she is held entitled to get back the stridhan described in the list mentioned in the plaint from the appellant/defendant.

¶19

The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit with the averments that at the time of her marriage with the appellant/defendant, she was given colour TV, two coolers, DVD, almirah, Philips radio, big trunk, big utensil stand, six buckets made of brass, seven steel buckets, four bronze plates, five bronze Lota (a round water pot), 1 number of utensil set, two numbers of steel Gundi (a water pot), mixer grinder, bed, press, ceiling fan, table fan, clothes, silver and gold ornaments etc. as mentioned in the list of stridhan in the plaint. She went with all these articles to her matrimonial home and started living with the appellant/defendant. However, in the year 2016 they filed an application for grant of decree of divorce on mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in which it was specifically mentioned that all the stridhan would be returned to her. Despite grant of decree of divorce on mutual consent, the appellant/defendant did not return the entire stridhan to her. Hence this suit.

¶20

The appellant/defendant in his written statement contended that the respondent/plaintiff has already taken with her all the stridhan to

¶21

3

¶22

her parental house in June, 2007 and that no such condition for return of stridhan was there in the application for decree of divorce on mutual consent. In fact, she has prepared a forged list of stridhan . Therefore, the present suit is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Family Court framed issues and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence allowed the suit of the plaintiff by the impugned judgment and decree. Hence this appeal.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that learned Family Court vide judgment dated 3.9.2016 (Annexure P/2) while granting decree of divorce on mutual consent passed no order for return of stridhan to the wife and since no appeal was filed against this judgment and decree by her seeking her stridhan , hence it has attained finality and is binding on her. He submits that the respondent/wife has not filed any receipt or bill of the articles sought for as stridhan . In absence thereof, the learned Family Court was not justified in allowing her suit and directing for return of the articles described in the list in the plaint as stridhan . He submits that the present suit for return of stridhan between the same parties is also hit by the principles of res judicata and as such not maintainable.

¶25

Reliance has been placed on the order dated 24.2.2022 of this Court in FAM No.14/2018 in the matter of Sharda Prasad Jaiswal Vs. Smt. Usha Jaiswal .

¶26

4

¶27

No one appears on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.

¶29

It is clear from the record of learned Family Court that the respondent/wife-applicant did not file any receipt or bill of the articles claimed back as stridhan . However, the appellant/husband admitted in examination-in-chief that there are a big bed, one almirah, TV, cooler, ceiling fan, utensil stand and utensil belonging to the respondent/wife in his house and he is ready to give all these articles back to her. In cross-examination he states that though the respondent/wife had brought some gold and silver ornaments with her but she has taken back those ornaments with her.

¶30

This Court in its order dated 24.2.2022 passed in FAM No.14 of 2018 in the matter of Sharda Prasad Jaiswal Vs. Smt. Usha Jaiswal, in paras 8 & 9 observed as under:

¶31

"8. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 reads as under:-

¶32

Rules in accordance with which lists of presents are to be maintained -

¶33

(1) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bride shall be maintained by the bride.

¶34

(2) The list of presents which are given at the time of the

¶35

5

¶36

marriage to the bridegroom shall be maintained by the bridegroom.

¶37

(3) Every list of presents referred to in sub-rule (1) or subrule (2) -

¶38

(a) shall be prepared at the time of the marriage or as soon as possible after the marriage;

¶39

(b) shall be in writing:

¶40

(c) shall contain:

¶41

(i) a brief description of each present;

¶42

(ii) the approximate value of the present:

¶43

(iii) the name of the person who has given the present; and

¶44

(iv) where the person giving the present is related to the bride or bridegroom, a description of such relationship:

¶45

(d) shall be signed by both the bride and the bridegroom. Explanation 1. Where the bride is unable to sign, she may affix her thumb impression in lieu of her signature after having the list read out to her and obtaining signature on the list of, the person who has so read out the particulars contained in the list.

¶46

Explanation 2. Where the bridegroom is unable to sign, he may affix his thumb impression in lieu of his signature after having the list read out to him and obtaining the signature on the list, of the person who has so read out the particulars contained in the list.

¶47

(4) The bride or the bridegroom may, if she or he so desires, obtained on either or both of the lists referred to in sub-rule (1) or sub-section (2) the signature or signatures of any relations of the bride or the bridegroom or of any other person or persons present at the time of the marriage.

¶48

The marriage of the respondent wife was solemnized

¶49

6

¶50

with the applicant husband on 29.04.1992 and they have been living separately since 1997, but the respondent wife filed the application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Korba on 20.07.2016 j.e. after about more than 18 years. The respondent wife did not state in her evidence that any list of articles, required under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985, was prepared at the time of their marriage or soon after the marriage and the same was not filed before the learned Family Court. The learned Family Court finds in para 9 that as per the appellant himself's version, the family members of the respondent wife had given household articles, such as bed, mattress, quilt, divan bed, pillow, sofa, utensils, two steel buckets, two steel drums, brass platter, steel platter, pressure cooker, gas stove, two cylinder cards to the respondent wife, therefore, the respondent wife is entitled to the aforesaid articles, however, the respondent wife is not entitled to scooter and jwellery in absence of any proof or valid document and accordingly partly allowed the application."

¶51

In the present case also, the respondent/wife did not file receipt of any articles or the ornaments but the learned Family Court allowed the suit of the respondent/wife and directed the appellant/husband to return all those articles described in the list in the plaint to her. Since the respondent/wife has not filed any document in the form of receipt or bill pertaining to these articles, she is entitled for only those articles which have been admitted by the appellant/husband in his evidence.

¶52

7

¶53

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant/husband is directed to return one big bed, one almirah, TV, cooler, ceiling fan, utensil stand, utensils, wall clock and press as stridhan to the respondent/wife. The impugned judgment and decree of learned Family Court stand modified to the above extent.

¶54

Let a decree be drawn up accordingly.

¶55

Sd/ Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge

¶56

Digitally MOHD signed AKHTAR by MOHD KHAN AKHTAR KHAN Khan

Ashutosh Dewangan v. Smt. Savita Dewangan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashutosh Dewangan v. Smt. Savita Dewangan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Nasiruddin Vs Smt. Khairun Nisha

Rahul Gupta Vs Radhika Gupta

Anil Chopra Vs G.K. Colonizers and Buildings Ltd.

Bhuneshwar Shrivas Vs Kimti Goyal

Lileshwar Vs Smt. Preetibala

Bhagwat Prasad Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh