Smt. Anjulata Ratre v. Sachin Jogi
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR FAM No. 25 of 2018 Smt. Anjulata Ratre W/o. Sachin Jogi, Aged about 29 years, Residence of near Gurughasidas Chouk beside Sarswati Shishu Mandir Bhadrapara Balko, Thana Balko, Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.) ---- Appellant
Versus
Sachin Jogi S/o. Phoolsay Jogi, Aged about 29 years, Residence of L.I.G. 32, L Housing Board Coloney, Rampur, Korba, Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.) ---- Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the appellant :- Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent :- None ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor, Order on Board By Manindra Mohan Shrivastava , J.
03.03.2020
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.10.2017 passed by the Family Court Korba, under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the matter of return of "stridhan".
2. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the court below has ordered return of some of the articles on the basis of purchase bills Ex.D-1 to Ex. D-13 which have been properly proved. He however, would submit that doubting the purchase bills running from Ex. D-14 to Ex.D-19, learned Court below has
rejected the application of the appellant in respect of purchase of other articles. He would submit that the order of the Court below is based on certain doubtful documents.
3. After going through the impugned judgment, we find that the learned Court below has directed return of stridhan in respect of purchase bills from Ex. D-1 to Ex.D-13 which have been produced by the appellant. Why the bills marked as Ex.D-14 to Ex.D-19 should be believed has not been stated in the memo of appeal. We find that those bills in which names were not mentioned or those bills where the purchase is shown subsequent to the date of marriage have not been accepted by the Court below. Therefore, in that view of the matter, in our consideration the court below has not committed any illegality in passing order under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act in respect of those articles which are not supported by proper and reliable purchase bills. Appeal is therefore, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Vimla Singh Kapoor Judge Judge Santosh