Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhuru @ Devendra vs Smt. Pooja W/O Bhuru @ Devendra on 27 February, 2024
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
FA No. 820 of 2021
(BHURU @ DEVENDRA Vs SMT. POOJA W/O BHURU @ DEVENDRA)
Dated : 27-02-2024
Ms. Priyal Rahangdale - Advocate for appellant.
Shri H.K. Namdeo - Advocate for respondent.
As regards question of maintainability of an order passed u/S.27 of
Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 in the absence of pendency of any other proceedings
under Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, this Court has considered conflicting views of
different Courts including Apex Court in Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam
Vs. Sangeeta Balkrishna Kadam, 1997 (7) SCC 500, Coordinate Bench
decision in Lalita Devi Vs. Laxminarayan, 2007 SCC onLine MP 840 and
Full Bench decision of Chhattisgarh High Court in Babulal Yadav Vs. Sonu
Yadav, FA (MAT) No.40/2022 decided on 04.07.2023.
Learned counsel for rival parties are also heard on the question of
maintainability.
The view of Apex Court in the case of Balkrishna (supra) does not
decide the controversy herein since the family dispute therein was raised initially
in Civil Courts has not in the Family Court. As regards the Coordinate Bench
decision in Lalita Devi (supra), the same though decides the said question but
in the face of more authoritative and considered decision of three Judge Bench
passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Babulal Yadav (supra), the said
Coordinate Bench order in Lalita Devi (supra) looses it's precedential sheen.
The Chhattisgarh High Court in Babulal Yadav (supra) inter alia held thus :
"26. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the
6:39:08 PM considered opinion that by virtue of Explanation (c) to sub-
section (1) of Section 7 of the Act of 1984, proceeding under
Section 151 of the CPC for return of stridhan would be
maintainable before the Family Court, whereas in the
matrimonial proceeding before the Family Court if any
application for disposal of property is made, with regard to
the property which is belonging jointly to husband and wife
presented to wife or husband or to both "at or about the time
of marriage" which may belong jointly to both husband and
wife, petition under Section 27 of the Act of 1955 would be
maintainable.
27. Consequently, the reference is answered as under: -
"It is held that substantive and independent application
under Section 151 of the CPC for return of stridhan would be
maintainable before the Family Court under Explanation (c)
to sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act of 1984."
28. In light of the above-stated findings and answer, the
judgment rendered by this Court in Smt. Babita alias Gyatri
(supra) followed in Smt. Anjali Trivedi (supra) cannot be
held to be laying down the good law, accordingly they are
overruled, however, the judgment rendered in Smt. Devika
Joshi (supra) to the extent that wife is entitled to recover
stridhan by filing appropriate proceeding before the Family
Court is the correct law, but, further, the finding that it
would be maintainable under Section 27 of the Act of 1955
cannot be said to be laying down the correct law in view of
the reference answered herein. The question of law is
answered accordingly.
29. While parting with the record, by way of clarification, it
is made clear that any application already filed and decided
or pending under Section 27 of the Act of 1955 claiming
stridhan has to be read and treated as application under
Section 151 of the CPC. Similarly, application filed under
Section 27 of the Act of 1955 claiming return of stridhan,
decreed / dismissed, has to be treated as filed under Section
result in failure of justice. Wrong and incorrect label of the
application and mentioning wrong provision neither confers
jurisdiction nor denudes the court of its jurisdiction to grant
relief, as the Family Court would have jurisdiction by virtue
of Explanation (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act of
1984 to order for return of stridhan.
30. Let the matter be placed before the appropriate
Division Bench for deciding the appeal in accordance with
law in light of the question of law answered herein-above."
From the above, it is obvious that the Larger Bench of Chhattisgarh High
Court after conjoint reading of Section 27 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 and
Section 7(1) Explanation (c) of Family Court Act held that the proceedings
u/S.27 of Hindu Marriage Act can be independently filed and decided.
This Court sees no reason to take a different view than the one taken by
three Judge Bench decision in Babulal Yadav (supra) rendered by
Chhattisgarh High Court.
Following the aforesaid, this Court holds that the application u/S 27
before the Family Court herein is independently maintainable and, therefore, the
present first appeal has been rightly preferred.
Parties are not ready with arguments.
As prayed for list after three weeks.
SHEEL NAGU) (VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE JUDGE
Biswal
