JUDGMENT : Deoki Nandan, J. These two appeals, the first one by the wife and the other by the husband arise from the order of the court of the District Judge, Dehradun, dated 16th August, 1978, allowing the husband's appeal before him from the ex-parte decree dated 28th October, 1977 passed by the court of the Civil Judge, Dehradun, on the wife's petition for divorce u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. The wife had claimed dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty against the husband. In the petition itself she had claimed a decree directing the Respondents to return the goods belonging to her, as specified in the Schedule to the petition, as also for the custody of the child. The husband had filed his written statement denying the Petitioner's allegations. After the failure of an attempt to bring about reconciliation between the parties, the trial court framed the issues whether the Respondent has treated the Petitioner with cruelty, and to what relief the Petitioner was entitled against the Respondent. The husband absented himself at the final hearing. The Petitioner filed an affidavit in support of the allegations made by her, and the trial court allowed the petition in the following terms: Petition is allowed with ex-parte costs. Marriage between the parties is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce. Respondent is directed to return the goods of the Petitioner as shown in the Schedule to the petition. The Respondent is further directed to give child in the custody of the Petitioner. The husband did not apply setting aside of the ex-parte decree and the restoration of the suit. He appealed to the district Court. The appeal was confined to the direction for returning of the goods of the Petitioner, and giving the child into the Petitioner's custody. The decree of divorce was thus allowed to become final. 3. Before the lower appellate court it was urged on behalf of the husband that the separate proceedings should have been taken for the claims for the return of the goods and the custody of the child. The lower appellate court held that it was not necessary to do so in view of Sections 26 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The lower appellate court held that it was not necessary to do so in view of Sections 26 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, it accepted the further contention raised on behalf of the husband that the only issue raised between the parties was with regard to cruelty which was referable to the claim for dissolution of the marriage and since no issue was pressed on behalf of the wife with regard to the other two claims for return of the goods and the custody of the child, he did not consider it worthwhile to appear at the trial; but the wife's claim for the return of the goods and the custody of the child having been denied by the husband in his written statement, no decree could have been passed in respect of them, at any rate not without trying the matter after formulating the points in issue between the patties with regard thereto. The lower appellate court accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the direction contained in the decree with regard to the return to the movable property and custody of the child and remanded these two matters for fresh trial after framing proper issues and giving the parties an opportunity to lead the evidence thereon. 4. While the wife has in her appeal in this Court claimed the setting aside of the lower appellate court's order and restoration of the decree of the trial court, the husband has claimed in his appeal that the wife's claim for the return of the goods and the custody of the child should have been dismissed. The learned Counsel for the husband stated before me that the child has already been given into custody of the wife and that the appeal was not pressed in so far as the claim for the custody of the child was concerned. With regard to the return of the goods, he, however, contended, and in my opinion rightly, that the claim for the return of the goods that was made by wife in the present case was not covered by Sec, 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act inasmuch as it has specifically been claimed in the petition that the goods sought to have been returned belonged to the wife who was the Petitioner, and not joint to both the husband and the wife. A reading of Section 27 would show that an order for disposal of the property can be passed under that provision only in respect of "any property presented, at or about the time of marriage which may belong jointly to both the husband and wife". Assuming that the goods specified in the schedule were those presented at the time of marriage, it was not the wife's case that they belonged jointly to both the husband and the wife. Her case clearly was that they belonged to her alone and had wrongfully been detained by the husband. The claim for the return of the goods was thus clearly beyond the scope of the proceedings initiated by the petition for divorce u/s 13 read with Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Since the goods were not even claimed to belong jointly to both the husband and the wife, no provision could have been made in respect thereof in the decree of the divorce which was passed in the case. The direction made in respect thereof by the trial court was thus wholly without jurisdiction and must be set aside. 5. This does not, however, mean that the wife could not have claimed in a properly constituted suit the return of the goods which were claimed to belong to her and were alleged to have been wrongfully detained by the husband. She was wrongly advised in making that claim in her petition for divorce u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. She ought to have filed a separate suit thereof for under the general law for recovery of goods wrongfully detained by another. 6. In the result both the First Appeals From Order are allowed in part. The judgment and order of the lower appellate court are set aside. Instead, while confirming the decree of divorce and the order for the return of the custody of the child to the wife, the order for the return of the goods is set aside. It shall however, be open to the wife, if so advised, to claim the return of the goods in a properly constituted suit. The parties shall bear their own costs throughout.