Coming to the plea of wife which was negatived by the learned trial Judge that items given at the time of "engagement cannot be returned, in my opinion deserves to be upset. The Trial Court held that the items given at the time of engagement (Sagai) cannot be termed as Stridhan property of a woman. I do not agree. In my opinion, the Trial Court on this issue committed an error. Any item article given by parents of a woman i.e. mother or/and father to their daughter at the time of engagement is in fact the nature of a gift and partake a status of a Stridhan. It becomes her exclusive property. In Manu Smriti, while enumerating six kinds of Stridhan, it is recognised that gift made before nupital fire to mean gift made at the time of marriage and that gifts made at the bridal procession, i.e. before the bride is taken to the residence of her husband are Stridhan property of a woman. An engagement ceremony is in fact a part of marriage which takes place just prior to marriage.
In my opinion, 1 have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of plaintiff as also that of her father on this issue. It is reasonable to infer that these items were given to girl (plaintiff) by her parents, whereas, Rs. 21,000/- was meant to husband. After all, in engagement ceremony, parents of girl do give some jewellery to their daughter and some to son-in-law. It has come in evidence that plaintiff's father had means to earn as also to spend. He had a capacity to purchase these gold and silver ornaments. Merely because no account were kept to show its purchase does not lead to a conclusion that they were not purchased. These are not purchases meant for running the business. In Hindu marriages these are the bear minimum that every parents of a girl are required to spend. In my opinion, the six silver glasses, one golden chain and ring were gifted to plaintiff by her parents and the same become plaintiff's Stridhan property entitling her to claim back from the defendant either in specie or in the alternative its value which works out to Rs. 5,750/-. So far as payment of Rs. 21,000/- is concerned, the same was negatived by the Trial Court. In my opinion, even assuming it is held to be proved then it was meant for defendant and hence no claim can be made by the plaintiff on Rs. 21,000/- as her Stridhan property.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkumar Patni vs Smt. Manorama Patni on 14 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: II (2000) DMC 702
1. The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of another connected first appeal being F.A. No. 319/94 as both these appeals arise out of a common judgment and the decree. In fact they are in the nature of cross appeals - one filed by plaintiff and other by defendant. The present first appeal under Section 96 of C.P. Code is by the defendant (husband) against the judgment and decree dated 27.6.1990 passed in C.S. No. 7/88 by 1st Additional District Judge, Shajapur. In order to appreciate the factual scenerio of this litigation, it is necessary to state the facts in brief.
2. It is in fact an unfortunate litigation between the wife and husband. Plaintiff is the wife and husband is the defendant. Wife has sued her husband for return of her Stridhan property in specie, or in the alternatively its value which according to wife works out to Rs. 1,49,140/-. In short and in substance, the case of wife in her plaint was that she married to defendant on 27.2.1977 according to Hindu custom at Sarangpur. It was alleged that out of this wedlock two sons and one daughter were born. It was then alleged that off and on, the defendant (husband) used to ill-treat the wife, would make demand of dowry, would beat her. AH this hostile attitude of husband continued upto 5.9.1986 when ultimately, it went out of wife's tolerance. She was forced to withdraw from his society. It was alleged that since September, 1986, wife has been living separately with her parents alongwith her three children. It was alleged that it is no longer possible for the wife to any more continue and live with her husband. She, therefore, claimed that whatever property. she had received in her marriage and also the property which according to her is her Stridhan property which is in custody and possession of her husband i.e. defendant be returned to her. The plaintiff then gave details of these properties in para 6 of plaint which according to her was her exclusive Stridhan. Essentially on these pleadings suit was filed.
3. The husband (defendant) denied the plaint allegations. In substance, his defence was that his relations with wife i.e. plaintiff were throughout cordial. According to him, the plaintiff had gone to her parental house of her own and when he went to take her, she declined to come and said that her life with him is in danger. It was alleged that under these circumstances, the husband then filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act which is still pending. It was then alleged that so far as gift items are concerned, that cannot be treated as plaintiff's property but it has to be treated as that of husband. The defendant also denied the list of several properties set out in the plaint and alleging that only one golden ring and two silver ornaments, some stainless steel articles, some pital articles, one steel bag, furniture, table fan etc. were given. It was denied that all this property is a Stridhan property on which plaintiff can lay any legitimate claim. The defendant offered to keep wife with him. It was also alleged that neither the suit is maintainable, nor the Court where the suit is filed has jurisdiction to try it. These were essentially the pleadings which were set up by way of defence in the written statement.
4. Parties went to trial. Issues were framed on the basis of the aforementioned pleadings. Parties led essentially oral evidence. The Trial Court by impugned judgment and decree, partly decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff. It was held that plaintiff in principle entitled to claim some gold ornaments weighing 8 Tolas, 4 golden churi - weighing 6 Tolas, table fan, stainless steel items, or in alternative a money decree of Rs. 53,000/-. It is on these issues that the impugned judgment/ decree was rendered which is now challenged by both wife as also by husband. According to wife, the suit should have been decreed in its entirety whereas according to husband, the suit should have been dismissed.
5. Heard Mr. B.L. Pavecha, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Yogesh Mittal for husband (appellant) and Mr. A.S. Kutumble, learned Counsel for respondent (wife).
6.I have heard the arguments of both the Counsel. Both have made sincere endeavour in appreciating the oral evidence to show infirmity in the impugned judgment. If the argument of learned Counsel for the husband was for dismissal of suit, then the argument of learned Counsel for the wife was for passing a decree in its entirety. Having given my anxious consideration to the issue involved and having analysed the oral evidence led by the parties in the context of practicle scenerio prevalent in society and the law explained in Hindu Law on Stridhan. I have come to a conclusion that appeal filed by defendant (husband) deserves to be dismissed whereas that of wife (plaintiff) to be allowed in part.
7. What is Stridhan? This subject though common in parlance is noticed as one of the important as also equally difficult one in uncodified Hindu Law. This difficulty was visualised due to its different meaning in various schools recognised in Hindu Law. Its literal meaning is woman's property. Acquisition of the property by a woman may be from various sources but to make that property Stridhan, its source as to how that property came to be acquired; the status of woman at the time of acquisition, and the school to Which she belongs is decisive. There has however been a concensus that the gifts received by a woman before or at the time of marriage from strangers, relatives, father, mother, brother are held to be her Stridhan property.
8. Let us examine the factual issue in this case. In the opinion of trial Judge in principle it is held in favour of wife that she is entitled to receive her Stridhan property from her husband or in the alternative its value. What was debated was the nature and extent of property that she was claiming from the defendant (husband). After evaluating the entire oral evidence and keeping in view the law explained on this issue, the learned trial Judge held that the properties mentioned in para 10 of the impugned judgment are plaintiff's Stridhan property. Accordingly, the decree was passed in relation to those articles.
9. Learned Counsel for appellant (defendant) made attempt to assail the aforementioned finding contending that no decree could have been passed in relation to these articles. I do not agree. It has come in evidence that these articles were given to plaintiff at the time of her marriage by her parents. The nature of articles for which the decree is passed clearly shows that they were fit to be given to girl at the time of marriage such as-gold ornaments, silver ornaments, stainless steel articles, table fan. These items are valued at Rs. 51,000/-. I do not find any justification in upsetting this finding as there is no ground made out for its upturning either on facts or in law. Indeed even the defendant (husband) had admitted that items were given at the time of marriage since after perusing the oral evidence, I have come to a conclusion to affirm the finding of Trial Court, I do not wish to burden the judgment again quoting the entire version of each and every witness on this issue. Accordingly, I affirm this finding and uphold the decree in favour of wife.
10. Coming to the plea of wife which was negatived by the learned trial Judge that items given at the time of "engagement cannot be returned, in my opinion deserves to be upset. The Trial Court held that the items given at the time of engagement (Sagai) cannot be termed as Stridhan property of a woman. I do not agree. In my opinion, the Trial Court on this issue committed an error. Any item article given by parents of a woman i.e. mother or/and father to their daughter at the time of engagement is in fact the nature of a gift and partake a status of a Stridhan. It becomes her exclusive property. In Manu Smriti, while enumerating six kinds of Stridhan, it is recognised that gift made before nupital fire to mean gift made at the time of marriage and that gifts made at the bridal procession, i.e. before the bride is taken to the residence of her husband are Stridhan property of a woman. An engagement ceremony is in fact a part of marriage which takes place just prior to marriage.
11. In my opinion, therefore, any gift to a woman by her parents at the time of engagement (Sagai) is her Stridhan property.
12. Let us examine the evidence to the extent necessary on the aforesaid issue. The plaintiff's father Trilokchand (P.W. 2) is the permanent resident of Sarangpur. He is engaged in business of conrractorship. He also has agricultural income besides his income from contractorship. He is an Income Tax payee. This clearly indicates that plaintiff's father is a man of status and has means to earn as also to spend. He has in clear term deposed in his evidence that at the time of engagement, he had given six silver glasses worth Rs. 3,000/-, one golden chain weighing one Tola worth Rs. 2,500/-, one golden ring weighing half Tola worth Rs. 1,200/-, and Rs. 21,000/-. This is corroborated by plaintiff in her evidence.
13. In my opinion, 1 have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of plaintiff as also that of her father on this issue. It is reasonable to infer that these items were given to girl (plaintiff) by her parents, whereas, Rs. 21,000/- was meant to husband. After all, in engagement ceremony, parents of girl do give some jewellery to their daughter and some to son-in-law. It has come in evidence that plaintiff's father had means to earn as also to spend. He had a capacity to purchase these gold and silver ornaments. Merely because no account were kept to show its purchase does not lead to a conclusion that they were not purchased. These are not purchases meant for running the business. In Hindu marriages these are the bear minimum that every parents of a girl are required to spend. In my opinion, the six silver glasses, one golden chain and ring were gifted to plaintiff by her parents and the same become plaintiff's Stridhan property entitling her to claim back from the defendant either in specie or in the alternative its value which works out to Rs. 5,750/-. So far as payment of Rs. 21,000/- is concerned, the same was negatived by the Trial Court. In my opinion, even assuming it is held to be proved then it was meant for defendant and hence no claim can be made by the plaintiff on Rs. 21,000/- as her Stridhan property.
14. In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the plaintiff is allowed in part the impugned decree is modified in favour of plaintiff to the extent of return of six silver glasses-Rs. 2,000/-, one golden chain weighing one Tola-Rs. 2,500/- and one golden ring weighing half tola - Rs. 1,250/- making a total value of Rs. 5,750/-. In all, thus, the plaintiff is held entitled to claim these additional items as her Stridhan property or in alternative its total value of Rs. 5,750/- from defendant. Plaintiff to get Rs. 500/- by way of cost for each appeal from the defendant.
Plaintiff to get Rs.500/- by way of cost for each appeal from the defendant.
No comments:
Post a Comment