Whether wife can claim streedhan in proceeding U/S 27 of Hindu Marriage Act?

 That a wife has an independent right to recover "Stridhan " by filing a civil suit or by invoking any other independent remedy under the common law, can be no ground to oust the special jurisdiction conferred upon the matrimonial Court under Section 27 of the Act. There appears to be explicit legislative intendment behind Section 27 of the Act that all ancillary and allied disputes between a husband and wife should also be resolved along with the main controversy. Only the items with a definite life span like the clothes, shoes or other wearables, can fall within the scope of 'exclusive property' of either the husband or the wife and not the other valuable assets which can be utilized by any one of them. Traditionally, the gold ornaments are considered to be a valuable property and an addition to the joint assets of a family and, thus, can not be excluded from the purview of Section 27 of the Act even if it is a part of "Stridhan". The aforesaid conclusion stands fortified by the views taken by their Lordships of the Apex Court in Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam's case (supra) where the wife's claim for return of jewelry was not turned down on the ground that it was an " Stridhan " or that a petition under Section 27 of the Act for recovery of those items was not maintainable, as also in Pratibha Rani's case (supra).

{Para 19}

20.A perusal of the list (Ex.PA) reveals that the "ornaments" include items like a 'gold ring' given to the appellant (Sr. No. 18 of the list). Similarly, several other items like the Television, Stablizer, Wall Clock, Alarm, Wrist Watch, Iron Press, Transistor, Table Fan and Suit case etc. are of common and joint use, though most of the jewelry items, (mentioned in the said list Ex.PA) are those which might be exclusively belonging to the respondent. However, all such items having been given by the parents of the respondent at or about the time of marriage, the same can not be segregated to compel the respondent to seek recovery thereof through multifarious legal proceedings.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

F.A.O. No. 159-M of 1995

Decided On: 11.08.2006

Subhash Chander Rohila Vs. Asha

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Surya Kant, J.

Citation:  MANU/PH/0657/2006.

Print Page

Whether the family court can pass second decree for disposal of matrimonial property after passing decree for divorce?

Whereas the Division Bench was right in holding that an order under Section 27 of the Act could be made by the trial court while dealing with matrimonial proceeding to from a part of the decree in the matrimonial proceedings, but no decree with regard 10 the property could be made unless it was established by evidence that the property was covered by Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act. There has been, in our opinion, no proper trial of the issue relating to the grant of relief under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as claimed by the respondent-wife. We are, therefore, constrained to set aside the judgment of all the courts below relating to the relief claimed by the respondent-wife under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act only and remit the matter to the Family Court to decide that issue in accordance with law. The parties be granted opportunity to adduce evidence, necessary to establish their respective cases before the Family court. The Family Court shall thereupon, draw up a decree, accordingly. We are conscious that the decree of divorce has already been passed and any decree now to be made in respect of the property under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act would be a separate decree, but, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when such a decree is made, it shall be treated to be a part of the decree of divorce already granted by the Family Court which has become final. Except holding that Section 27 of the Act is attracted to the fact situation in the instant case, we express no opinion on the merits of the claim laid by the wife and disputed by the husband. The claim of the respondent shall be decided independently by the Family Court, uninfluenced by the observations made by us herein.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 126 of 1993

Decided On: 04.09.1997

Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam Vs. Sangeeta Balkrishna Kadam

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. A.S. Anand and K. Venkataswami, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0882/1997,AIR1997SC3562,(1997)7SCC500.

Print Page

Important judgments on orders as to disposal of property u/s. 27 of The Hindu Marriage Act.

 

1) Whether independent application U/S 27 of Hindu marriage Act is maintainable?

From the perusal of the provision of Section 27, it is clear that the application under Section 27 is not maintainable independently. As per Section 27 in any pending 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. The impugned order passed by Family Court appears to be justified, as under Section 27 of the Act no such independent application is maintainable.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On: 20.09.2007

 Lalita Devi  Vs.  Laxminarayan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.K. Gohil and Sheela Khanna, JJ.

Citation: I (2008) DMC 351 (MP),MANU/MP/0571/2007.

https://www.lawweb.in/2020/07/whether-independent-application-us-27.html

Print Page

How the courts should pass orders as to disposal of property u/s. 27 of The Hindu Marriage Act?

Section 27 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

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.

Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 empowers the court to make orders regarding the disposal of property in any proceeding under the Act. This provision applies to both movable and immovable property, including property that may have been presented at or about the time of marriage, as well as property acquired during the course of the marriage.

Print Page

Whether independent application U/S 27 of Hindu marriage Act is maintainable?

 From the perusal of the provision of Section 27, it is clear that the application under Section 27 is not maintainable independently. As per Section 27 in any pending 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. The impugned order passed by Family Court appears to be justified, as under Section 27 of the Act no such independent application is maintainable. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Family Court. However, the appellant is free to avail the remedy available to her under the law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On: 20.09.2007

 Lalita Devi  Vs.  Laxminarayan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.K. Gohil and Sheela Khanna, JJ.

Citation: I (2008) DMC 351 (MP),MANU/MP/0571/2007

Print Page

Supreme Court: Family Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any question relating to the properties of divorced parties

The fact of the matter, as noticed hereinbefore, clearly shows that the dispute between the parties to the marriage arose out of the properties claimed by one spouse against the other. The respondent herein made a categorical statement to the effect that the properties were purchased out the amount paid in cash or by way of ornaments and the source of consideration for purchasing the properties described in Schedules 'A' and 'B' of the suit having been borne out of the same, the appellant herein was merely a trustee in relation thereto and could not have claimed any independent interest thereupon. It is also apparent that whereas the agreement marked as Exhibit A1 was executed on 17.09.1994, the appellant pronounced Talaq on 01.11.1995. The wordings 'disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith' in the view of this Court must be given a board construction. The Statement of Object and Reasons, as referred to hereinbefore, would clearly go to show that the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends, inter alia, in relation to properties of spouses or of either of them which would clearly mean that the properties claimed by the parties thereto as a spouse of other, irrespective of the claim whether property is claimed during the subsistence of a marriage or otherwise.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3322 of 2003

Decided On: 10.04.2003

 K.A. Abdul Jaleel  Vs.  T.A. Shahida

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.N. Khare, C.J., S.B. Sinha and A.R. Lakshmanan, JJ.

Citation : MANU/SC/0301/2003

Print Page

Supreme Court: The family Court should not give final relief at interim stage

 By the impugned order, the court has directed the Court Receiver to take possession of the flat from the appellant and induct respondent-wife in the flat during the pendency of the appeal.

{Para 3}

4. In the appeal filed, the appellant has called in question the correctness or otherwise of the findings and the conclusion reached by the Family Court in Petition No. A-1072/2000 dated 6.2.2007, wherein the Family Court has reached the conclusion that both the husband and wife are joint owners of flat bearing No. 303, Rajesh Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Borivali (West), Mumbai.

Even before giving a verdict on the findings and the conclusions reached by the Family Court, by way of interim relief, the court has granted the main relief itself. This, in our opinion is unsustainable. It is settled legal position, that by way of interim relief, final relief should not be granted till the matter is decided one way or the other.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1788 of 2009 

Decided On: 23.03.2009

 Mehul Mahendra Thakkar  Vs. Meena Mehul Thakkar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Tarun Chatterjee and H.L. Dattu, JJ.

Citation: 2009 (14) SCC 48: MANU/SC/0425/2009

Print Page

Supreme Court: Family court has jurisdiction to decide any dispute between husband and wife relating to property given before or after their marriage

In our opinion, the courts have not gone into the question in its correct perspective. The trial court proceeded to negative the claim of the respondent-wife by holding that the court had no jurisdiction to deal with the property rights of the parties and gave no opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective claims. The finding of the trial court clearly overlooked the provisions of Sections 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act which unmistakably vests the jurisdiction in the court to pass an order, at the time of passing a decree in a matrimonial cause. In respect of the property presented, at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to the husband and the wife. The learned single Judge also fell in complete error while concurring with the view of the trial court to say that there was no evidence on the record to show that the property claimed by the wife was presented to her at the time of her marriage. The learned single judge failed to take notice of the deposition of the respondent in that behalf. Moreover, the property which is given to the wife at the time of marriage only. It includes the property given to the parties before of after given to the parties before or after marriage also. So long as it is relatable to the marriage. the expression "at or about the time of marriage" has to be properly construed to includes such property which is given at the time of marriage as also the property given before or after marriage to the parties to become their "their property". Implying thereby that the property can be tracked to have connection with the marriage. All such property is covered by section 27 of the Act.

Supreme Court of India

Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam vs Sangeeta Balkrishna Kadam on 4 September, 1997

Bench: A.S. Anand, K. Venkataswami

  Citation:1997(3) MHLJ(SC)597

Print Page

Index of caselaws relating to family matters

I. Marriage :
1. Registration of Marriage :
i. Seema v. Ashwani Kumar, Air 2006 SC 1158 : 2006 (2) ALD 57 (SC) : 2006 (2) AWC 1599 (SC) : 2006 2 Bom CR 497 : 101 (2006) CLT 639 (SC) : 2006 (1) CTC 552 : 127 (2006) DLT 282 (SC) : I (2006) DMC 327 SC : (2006) 2 JCR 137 (SC) : 2006 (1) JKJ 67 (SC) : JT 2006 (2) SC 3782 : 2006 (2) KAR LJ 481 : 2006 (1) KLT 91 (SC) : 2006 (I) OLR (SC) 299 : (2006) 142 PLR 834 : RLW 2006 (2) SC 944 : 2006 (2) Scale 333 : (2006) 2 SCC 578

2. Hiv Status of Person : Right to Marry whether Absolute :
i. Mr. X v. Hospital Z, Air 2003 SC 664
ii. Mr. X v. Hospital Z, Air 1999 SC 495 : (1998) 8 SCC 296 : (1998) 7 JT 626 : (1998) 6 Scale 230 : (1998) 9 Supreme 220 : (1999) 1 SRJ 88 : (1998) 3 CPJ 12

3. Christian Lady Converting to Hinduism before Marriage Marriage not Void for Want of Proof of Shudhi Karan Ceremony :
i. Madhavi Ramesh Dudani v. Ramesh K. Dudani, Air 2006 Bom 94 : Air 2006 Bom 94 : 2006 (1) Bom CR 20 : (2005) 10730 MLR 1237 : I (2006) DMC 386 : 2006 (2) MhLJ 307 

Print Page