Disposed

M.Mohanraj v. M.Rekha

Madras HC30 Jan 2024CRP/2529/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife's application for return of marriage gold jewels and silver articles was allowed by the Family Court on affidavits alone. The High Court held evidence was required to prove presentation and retention, set aside that order and remanded for fresh consideration after evidence.

What did the court decide?

Order allowing return of jewels set aside; matter remanded to V Additional Family Court, Chennai, for fresh consideration with evidence; connected MP closed; no costs.

M.Mohanraj Vs M.Rekha — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CRP.No.2529 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 30.01.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

CRP.No.2529 of 2021 and CMP.No.18960 of 2021

¶7

M.Mohanraj ... Petitioner Vs. M.Rekha ...Respondent

¶8

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to allow this Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order dated 13.05.2021 passed in IA.No.1 of 2021 in OP.No.4426 of 2018 passed by V Additional Family Court, Chennai.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Krishnakumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Velmurugan

¶10

1/6

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶12

CRP.No.2529 of 2021

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the husband challenging

¶15

the order passed by the Court below allowing the application filed by the respondent/wife under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶16

2. The respondent/wife filed a petition seeking a direction to the petitioner herein to return of gold jewels and silver articles presented to her at the time of marriage. According to the respondent, the marriage between her and the petitioner was solemnized on 06.06.2016 and later on she was thrown out from the matrimonial home in July 2018. It was asserted by the respondent that gold jewels and silver articles presented to her were retained by the petitioner/husband and therefore, she was constrained to file the above petition for return of articles.

¶17

3. The petitioner/husband filed a counter denying the assertion made by the respondent as if the gold jewels and silver articles allegedly presented to her were retained by the petitioner. It was averred by the petitioner/husband that he presented the respondent with 5 sovereigns of gold

¶18

2/6

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

CRP.No.2529 of 2021

¶21

at the time of marriage and at the time of desertion the gold jewels were taken

¶22

away from the matrimonial home. Therefore, the allegations of the respondent

¶23

as if the gold jewels and silver articles were retained by the petitioner/husband was specifically denied.

¶24

4. The averments and counter averments in the affidavit of the

¶25

parties are not sufficient to decide the dispute between the parties. Whether the gold jewels and silver articles allegedly presented to the respondent are available with the petitioner/husband is the matter to be decided based on the evidence to be let in by the parties.

¶26

5. In the case on hand, both the parties failed to lead any evidence in this regard. The Court below allowed the application filed by the respondent only based on the affidavit and counter affidavit of the parties. Unless the respondent proves presentation of gold jewels and silver articles and retention of the same by husband the Court below ought not to have allowed the application. Hence, the allowing of the application filed by the respondent for return of the gold jewels is set aside and the matter is

¶27

3/6

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

CRP.No.2529 of 2021

¶30

remanded back to the file of the V Additional Family Court, Chennai, for fresh consideration after affording opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective stand. With these observations, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.

¶31

6. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the main HMO.P.No.4426 of 2018 filed by the petitioner/husband and maintenance case in MC.No.375 of 2019 filed by the respondent/wife are kept pending due to the interim order passed by this Court in this Revision.

¶32

7. In view of the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, the Court below is directed to consider the petition for maintenance and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶33

30.01.2024

¶34

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No dna 4/6

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

CRP.No.2529 of 2021

¶37

¶38

The V Additional Family Court, Chennai.

¶39

5/6

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.No.2529 of 2021

S.SOUNTHAR , J.

dna

CRP.No.2529 of 2021 and CMP.No.18960 of 2021

¶45

30.01.2024

¶46

6/6

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.Mohanraj v. M.Rekha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Mohanraj v. M.Rekha

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

J.Radhakrishnan Vs S.N.Karthikeyan

Mr.a.Mohamed Zackiullah Vs Mrs.C.P.Zainbha

Varadarajee @ Varadarajan(Died) Vs Paramasivam

M. Kalimuthu Vs R.Palanisamy

T.Sathaiah Vs v.Ramesh

S.Suresh Kumar Vs Sangeetha