Chattisgarh High Court
Manoj Kumar Kurrey vs Taneshwari Kurrey on 2 January, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:263
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
FAM No. 240 of 2018
Manoj Kumar Kurrey S/o Late Kunjram Kurrey Aged About 32 Years R/o
Village Donkijor, Post Gatadih, Police Station, Kosir, Tahsil Sarangarh,
District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. At Present Resident Of C.I.S.F. Unit, B.C.C.L.
Koyala Nagar, Dhanbad, Post Koyala Nagar Pin 826-005 (Jharkhand).
--- Appellant
versus
Taneshwari Kurrey, W/o. Manoj Kurrey, aged about 28 years, R/o. Village
Kosmanda, Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Udho Ram Koshaley, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
02/01/2025
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated
30.08.2018, passed in Civil Suit No.12-A/2016, whereby the learned
Additional District Judge, Sarangarh, District - Raigarh while allowing
the civil suit filed by the respondent/wife under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 (In short 'the Act, 1955) for dissolution of marriage
has further directed the appellant to return the gifts/property received
BALRAM PRASAD by him at the time of marriage to respondent/wife, within two months.
2. For the sake of the convenience, the parties shall be referred to in
terms of their status as shown in civil suit i.e. plaintiff and defendant.
3. The facts relevant for the disposal of this case are that the plaintiff/wife
filed an application under Section 13 of the Act, 1955, seeking the
dissolution of the marriage between the parties, which was solemnized
on 20.05.2013. She sought to declare the divorce document dated
28.04.2016 as null and void and also prayed for the return of her
Stridhan as listed in the application. It was pleaded that the marriage
between the plaintiff and defendant was performed on 20.05.2013, and
they had a daughter, born on 18.02.2014. The couple lived together
until 28.04.2016 in the village of Daukijor. Thereafter the relationship
between the parties became strained due to the defendant's
extramarital affair with one Nirmala Mahilange. The defendant and his
family subjected the plaintiff to harassment, torture and also to engage
herself in unnatural acts. As a result of this ill-treatment, the plaintiff
suffered from depression. Furthermore, the plaintiff claimed that, at the
time of marriage, plaintiff's father and her relatives had given gifts to
the defendant and his family, as detailed in the Schedule 'A' attached
to the application. These gifts were retained by the defendant and his
family and are still in their possession. Due to the deteriorating
relationship, mutual harmony between the plaintiff and defendant was
lost, and the possibility of a happy marital life diminished, therefore,
they executed a deed of divorce on 28.04.2016, according to which ,
the defendant was required to return the gifts and property received
during the marriage, but he has failed to do so. Subsequently, a legal
notice was sent to the defendant, to which he responded, denying to
return of the gifts. The plaintiff further contended that the divorce
document was signed under duress, as she was pressurized and
subjected to ill-treatment by the defendant and his family members,
which led her to sign the divorce deed while in a state of depression.
4. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made
in the plaint. It was pleaded that he is employed with the Central
Industrial Security Force, due to which he could visit to home only two
or three times a year. The defendant further claimed that the plaintiff
failed to fulfill her marital obligations and had been residing at her
parental home. She allegedly used to quarrel and harass him,
demanding a divorce, and threatened to commit suicide if her demand
was not fulfilled. The defendant also contended that, according to the
deed of divorce, both parties have waived all claims against each
other, either in society, before the Court, or any other forum and no
dispute remains between the parties regarding ornaments, jewelry, or
any other movable property. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff
filed this application with an intention to harass him. It was pleaded
that in the interest of justice, the relief sought in Clause "A" of the
application be granted, while rejecting the other reliefs sought by the
plaintiff.
5. Learned trial Court based on the pleadings made by respective parties
has framed four issues. The plaintiff in order to substantiate her claim
has examined herself as (P.W.-1) and Bablu Ratre (P.W.-2) and
exhibited document deed of divorce (Ex.P-1), reply to the notice dated
18.05.2016 (Ex.P-2), postal receipts (Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4) and
registered notice with acknowledgment as (Ex.P-5). The defendant to
substantiate his claim has examined himself as (D.W.-1). No
document has been exhibited in his support.
6. Learned trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence brought on record by the parties, allowed the application filed
by the plaintiff under Section 13 of the Act, 1955 vide impugned
judgment and decree and dissolved the marriage between the parties.
The learned trial Court has further directed the defendant/appellant to
return the gifts/property received by him at the time of marriage to
respondent/wife, within two months.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to
pursue this appeal regarding the relief granted by trial Court for
dissolution of marriage, however, he seeks to press the appeal solely
on the issue of the return of Streedhan to the plaintiff/wife. He submits
that the impugned judgment and decree with regard to return of
Streedhan/gifts/property is illegal and bad in law. It is contended that
there is no evidence to prove that the items listed as Streedhan belong
to the wife or were indeed given to her at the time of marriage. It is
contended that there was a prior settlement between the parties,
wherein both the parties agreed not to make any claim against each
other in society, before the Court, or any other forum, regarding the
return of Streedhan. It is further contended that the marriage was
solemnized on 20.05.2013, and the items received at the time of
marriage have since been used by both parties, resulting in damage or
loss of value. It is also contended that the gold and silver ornaments
allegedly given at the time of marriage were given to the
respondent/wife and she was in possession of same; therefore, there
is no question of returning the same to respondent/wife.
8. Learned counsel for respondent/wife opposes the submission of
learned counsel for appellant and would submit that learned trial Court
after appreciating all the documentary and oral evidence brought on
record by the parties has passed the impugned judgment and decree,
which does not call for any interference.
9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents
placed on record.
10. As the appellant seeks to pursue this appeal solely on the issue of the
return of Streedhan and the gifts to the plaintiff/wife, therefore, the
evidence and documents are addressed exclusively to that extent only.
11. Section 27 of the Act, 1955 deals with the disposal of the property,
which was presented at or about the time of marriage, which may
belong to jointly to both the husband and the wife, which reads thus :-
"27. Disposal of property. -- In any proceeding under
this Act, the Court may make such provisions in the
decree as it deems just and proper with respect to any
property presented, at or about the time of marriage,
which may belong jointly to both the husband and the
wife."
12. The plaintiff in her application and evidence stated that she was given
the articles listed in Schedule-A, attached with the plaint, by her
parents and relatives at the time of her marriage. Appellant/defendant
in his cross-examination in para-8 admitted that the details given in the
reply to the notice (Ex.P-3) and list of gift items attached with it are
correct. In para-9 of his cross-examination, he further admitted that he
is having the items mentioned in the list shown in the reply to the
notice (Ex.P-3) sent by plaintiff. Plaintiff in her cross-examination in
para-22 denied the suggestion given that she has got back the jewllery
from village by sending her brother.
13. Though no receipt or bill has been placed on record by either party for
the gifts given at the time of marriage, making it unclear which family
members or relatives from either party provided the items. However,
the list attached to the reply to the registered notice (Ex.P-2) and
admission of appellant/defendant in cross-examination clearly show
that the items were given as gifts at the time of marriage by the family
and relatives of respondent/wife, which both parties have jointly used
and enjoyed.
14. In view of the above, it is clear that plaintiff has provided convincing
evidence, including the admission made by appellant/defendant during
cross-examination, that the gifts/items as ordered by the trial Court and
listed in Schedule-A were given to respondent by her family and
relatives at the time of marriage. Though receipts or bills are not
placed on record, however, the appellant has acknowledged
possession of these items in his response to the notice (Ex.P-3),
further confirming that the gifts were jointly used by both parties.
Moreover, Section 27 of the Act, 1955, allows the Court to order the
return of property presented at or around the time of marriage, which
may be jointly owned by the husband and wife. The learned trial Court
after appreciating all the evidence brought on record rightly ordered for
return of the Streedhan/gifts/property to the respondent-wife, which
does not call for any interference.
15. In the result, the appeal is bereft of merit and it is dismissed
accordingly.
16. Decree be drawn accordingly.
◦ Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Balram
