Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Subodh Singh Baghel vs Smt. Gitanjali Singh on 31 August, 2023
Author: Amar Nath (Kesharwani)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
FIRST APPEAL No. 1977 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. SHRI SUBODH SINGH BAGHEL S/O SHRI RAM
SINGH BAGHEL, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PRIVATE SERVICE R/O JUNIOR H.I.G.
160, SECTOR-L, AYODHYA NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SHRI RAM SINGH BAGHEL S/O ADITYA SINGH
BAGHEL, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O JUNIOR H.I.G.
160, SECTOR-L, AYODHYA NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. UMA SINGH BAGHEL W/O RAM SINGH BAGHEL,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O JUNIOR H.I.G. 160,
SECTOR-L, AYODHYA NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ABHIJEET A. AWASTHI - ADVOCATE )
AND
SMT. GITANJALI SINGH D/O SHRI SURENDRA SINGH
CHAUHAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O VINDHYA
VIHAR COLONY, H.I.G. -14, NEAR BADI PULL, REWA
(M.P.), CURRENTLY RESIDING AT H.NO. 19/849 INDIRA
NAGAR, LUCKNOW (UTTAR PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 9/1/2023
12:59:20 PM
2
(BY SHRI JAGAT SINGH - ADVOCATE )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heard on : 17.08.2023
Pronounced on : 31.08.2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment coming on for
pronouncement on this day, Justice Amar Nath (Kesharwani) pronounced the
following:
J.U.D.G.M.E.N.T
The appellant-husband has filed this First Appeal under Section 19 of the
Family Courts Act, 1984, hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1984' read with
Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act
of 1955', against the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2022 passed in case
No.RCS HM/74/2019; whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court Rewa (M.P.)
has partially allowed the petition filed on behalf of respondent-wife under
Section 27 of 'the Act of 1955' for direction to the appellant-husband to return
back articles i.e. furniture, electronic items, gold jewellery etc. which were
given on the occasion of marriage of the parties, whereon, appellant-husband is
ordered for payment of Rs.7,62,880/- (Seven Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Eight
Hundred and Eighty) to respondent-wife.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the appellant &
respondent was solemnized on 24.01.2011 as per Hindu rituals at Rewa and
decree of divorce was passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Rewa in CS
No.91A/2016 vide judgment & decree dated 18.01.2018. The respondent (wife)
had filed an application under Section 27 of the Act of 1955 for recovery of
items worth Rs.20 (Twenty) Lakhs given to the family members of the appellant
in furtherance of the marriage ceremony. Appellant-husband was summoned in
the case and he filed reply of the petition. On the basis of the pleadings of the
parties, Family Court framed the issues for adjudication of the dispute between
the parties. The respondent-wife examined herself as AW-1 and Chaman Soni as
AW-2 and also exhibited documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/19, whereas, appellant-
husband examined himself as NAW-1. The Principal Judge, Family Court after
appreciating the evidence that came on record gave the findings in favour of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 9/1/2023
12:59:20 PM
respondent-wife and ordered appellant-husband to make payment of
Rs.7,62,880/- (Seven Lakh Sixty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty) to
the respondent-wife with simple interest @ 6% from the date of decree till the
payment.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court
erred in appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case by accepting the
deposition made by Chaman Soni (AW-2). He also submits that the learned
Family Court erred in relying upon the documents exhibited from P/13 to P/19
which are not the bills but are only the estimates. Learned counsel for the
appellant also submits that in Ex.P/2 to P/9, name of purchaser was not
mentioned whereas Ex.P/11 was in the name of Smt. Archana Singh, hence, the
Family Court erred in accepting the amount of jewellery in paragraph 22 of the
impugned judgment. He further submits that learned Family Court has also
erred in appreciating the fact that the proceedings under Section 27 of 'the Act
of 1955' can be instituted separately.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-wife submits that
all the jewellery and articles which were given on the occasion of marriage are
in the custody of the appellant-husband, and respondent-wife was sent back to
her parental house on 12.12.2012. He also submits that the findings of the trial
Court are based on the evidence on record, hence, does not call for any
interference and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record and impugned judgment.
6. Learned Family Court has given findings on preponderance of probability
that the articles (Jewellery) which were mentioned in paragraph 22 of the
impugned judgment were purchased for the occasion of marriage, and gave
finding in para 23 that articles which were mentioned in para 22 of the
impugned judgment are in the possession of appellant-husband because
respondent-wife was compelled to go to Rewa from Bhopal and under such
circumstance it does not seems natural that respondent-wife may have carried
the abovementioned jewellery with her.
7. Findings regarding valuation of the articles (Jewellery and other) rests
upon Ex.P/14 to P/19. Whereas, Chaman Soni (AW-2) has admitted in
paragraph-6 that in Ex.P-14 to Ex.P-19, "Estimate" is mentioned. AW-2 has also
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 9/1/2023
12:59:20 PM
admitted in paragraph-8 that Service Tax No., PIN number and Sale Tax No. are
not mentioned in the Ex.P-14 to P-19, whereas, AW-2 has stated in paragraph-3
of his cross-examination that he was working in shop of his father for 20 years
and stated that PIN, TIN and Service Tax number has been allotted to his shop
from initial stage. AW-2 has not stated in his examination that by which mode
payment of jewellery was made to him.
8. AW-1 has stated in paragraph-12 of her Chief Examination that she has
filed the bills of jewellery and other items Ex.P-2 to P-19. AW-1 has also stated
in paragraph-12 of her Chief Examination that those jewelleries were given on
her marriage by her mother and grandmother, which were purchased from
"Pratap Jewellers, Rewa" and some old jewelleries which belonged to her
mother and grandmother, that were given to her on her marriage.
9. No documents relating to payment for jewellery which were made to
"Pratap Jewellers, Rewa" have been submitted. Ex.P-14 to Ex.P-19 are only the
estimates and if we calculate all the amounts mentioned in Ex.P-14 to Ex.P-19,
then it adds up to more than 10 Lakhs but learned Family Court has valued it
only to the tune of Rs.7,62,880/- (Seven Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Eight
Hundred and Eighty) on the preponderance of probability. In Ex.P-14, Ex.15,
Ex.16 and Ex.17 purchaser name is mentioned as "Baby Didi" and in Ex.P-18
name is mentioned as Abhimanyu Singh and in Ex.P-14A and Ex.P-19 name of
purchaser is not mentioned.
10. It is not disputed that at the time of marriage of the respondent, her father
was not alive. Respondent-wife has examined herself as AW-1. She has not
examined her mother or grandmother in support of her pleadings about
purchasing of jewellery or payment for the jewellery. Respondent-wife has not
examined any other relative to support her pleadings.
11. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the statement in paragraph-11 of
respondent-wife (AW-1), she last came from her matrimonial home to her
parental house in December 2012. She filed divorce petition Civil Suit No.91
A/2016 before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court Rewa on 29.08.2016
on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Written statement was filed by the
appellant-husband in that matrimonial case and pleaded that in December, 2012
when he was admitted in hospital due to neurological problem caused by
cervical spine, respondent-wife herself left the matrimonial house and carried
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 9/1/2023
12:59:20 PM
with her all the things (रपयय पपसय सब) and blamed on the respondent-wife that she
has deserted the appellant-husband since 12.12.2012 and pleaded that cruelty
was caused by the respondent-wife and therefore, it is not possible to reside
together and prayed for grant of decree of divorce. On the pleadings of the rival
parties of the case, family Court framed the issues and after recording the
evidence of the rival parties, Court of Principal Judge, Family Court Rewa
passed a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion vide judgment dated
18.01.2018 (Ex.P-1).
12. It does not reveal from the judgment & decree (Ex.P-1) delivered by the
Family Court, Rewa (M.P.), that in the divorce petition, which was filed by the
respondent-wife, pleading regarding return of articles (Stridhan) was made or
not but it is clear from the para no.4 of the judgment & decree (Ex.P-1) that
appellant-husband has pleaded that respondent-wife has herself left the house of
the appellant-husband and had taken away all the things (रपयय पपसय सब).
13. It is also pertinent to mention here that respondent-wife filed a petition
under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 151 CPC
before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewa on 19.06.2019, after passing of
the divorce decree dated 18.01.2018 i.e. after one and a half year from the
passing of divorce decree.
14. As discussed above, we are of the opinion that there is no cogent and
reliable evidence on record to prove that the articles (ornaments), for which
learned Family Court, Rewa has decreed to the payment of Rs.7,62,880/- (Seven
Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty) against appellant-
husband, were allegedly presented to the rival party of the case at the time of
their marriage and now is in the custody of appellant-husband.
15. In case of Balkrishna Ramchand Kadam vs. Sangeeta Balkrishna
Kadam (1997) 7 SCC 500, Hon'ble Apex Court in para 12 of the judgment has
held that "No decree with regard to the property could be made unless it was
established by the evidence that the property was covered by Section 27 of the
Hindu Marriage Act."
16. As discussed above and as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex court in Balkrishna (Supra), we are of the opinion that, judgment and
decree, dated 18.11.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 9/1/2023
12:59:20 PM
Rewa passed in Case No. RCS HM/74/2019 is not sustainable in law, hence,
appeal is allowed and impugned judgment and decree is hereby set-aside.
(SHEEL NAGU) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
anand
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 9/1/2023
12:59:20 PM
