Allahabad High Court: In an appeal filed against the judgment passed by Family Court, wherein, the husband was directed to pay Rs.10,54,364/- in lieu of returning ‘stridhan’ articles, the division bench of Arindam Sinha* and Avnish Saxena,JJ. held that the distribution of properties of the parties, including the return of stridhan, must be determined within the framework of proceedings instituted under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’), and not by way of a separate and independent application filed under Section 27 HMA. Hence, the proceedings under Section 27 HMA cannot be treated as independent or standalone proceedings to result in a decree.
The Court noted that the marriage between the parties had been subsequently dissolved by a judgment dated 1-05-2023, passed by the Family Court. Prior thereto, the wife had filed an application dated 13-05-2015, seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which culminated in an order dated 11-08-2017, directing the husband to pay maintenance. In compliance with the said order, the husband had earlier paid a sum of ₹6,00,000 and had also handed over a demand draft for a further sum of ₹1,00,000 towards the said obligation.
The Court observed that the jewellery receipts tendered by the wife were only photocopies. There was no explanation in the impugned judgment as to why such documents were accepted as secondary evidence. Furthermore, the wife had alleged in her application that the husband forcibly took away jewellery, physically assaulted her, and drove her out of the matrimonial home. However, the FIR dated the same day alleged conspiracy involving seven accused persons, including the husband.
The Court said that the wife admitted during cross-examination that the husband was not present at the time of the alleged incident. Despite this, the Judge failed to consider this admission while rendering the impugned judgment. The Court also observed that mere omission to object to the production of photocopies does not equate to admission of the facts therein. Secondary evidence must comply with statutory requirements under the Evidence Act, 1872 and cannot be admitted unless the foundation for such evidence is laid.
The Court noted that the husband could not have had knowledge of jewellery transactions allegedly conducted by the wife’s family, and therefore no adverse inference could be drawn against him merely on the basis of unchallenged photocopied receipts. Possession of the stridhan still required independent proof.
The Court said that the Single Judge had indirectly relied on the existence of a pending criminal case at Banda to support findings of assault, torture, and misappropriation, rather than directly addressing the husband’s arguments.
On the question of law, the Court held that proceedings under Section 27 HMA, cannot be treated as independent or standalone proceedings to result in a decree. The Court concurred with the view expressed in Babita v. Modprasad, 2017 SCC OnLine Chh 1562 that Section 27 is not a substantive right, but a discretionary provision enabling relief incidental to matrimonial proceedings. Reliance was placed on Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam v. Sangeeta Balkrishna Kadam, (1997) 7 SCC 500, where the Supreme Court clarified that Section 27 is a remedial provision permitting recovery of specific property given at or around the time of marriage and jointly belonging to the parties.
The Court further observed that Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 permits either spouse, subsequent to a decree for dissolution of marriage, to apply for maintenance, either in the form of a monthly allowance or a lump sum payment. In addition, Section 27 of the Act empowers the Court passing the decree to make appropriate directions regarding property that was presented at or about the time of marriage and which may belong jointly to the parties. In the present case, however, the Court noted that no direction had been made in respect of any such property, whether joint or otherwise, in the judgment and decree, whereby the marriage stood dissolved.
Addressing the wife’s objection regarding the husband not having filed an appeal against the execution proceedings or having failed in seeking review, the Court clarified that an appeal is a statutory right under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), while review lies under Section 114 read with Order XLVII. Since the husband has succeeded in the present appeal, the execution proceeding, based on the impugned judgment passed without jurisdiction, must be treated as a nullity and dropped accordingly. The executing Court was directed to determine the issue under Section 47 CPC.Hence, the Court set aside the impugned judgment.
[Krishna Kumar Gupta v. Priti Gupta, 2025 SCC OnLine All 3190, decided on 27-05-2025]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Arindam Sinha
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Appellant: – Ambrish Kumar Pandey, Lok Nath Shukla
Counsel for Respondent: – Gyanendra Singh
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
