ABANI MOHAN SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application at the instance of the husband is directed against the order of learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court, Alipore passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 12/ 1983. The wife opposite party filed a Matrimonial suit for divorce in 1983. Along with suit she filed an application under S. 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act for disposal of the property presented to her at or about the time of marriage. She also prayed for an order of permanent alimony under S. 25 of the Act. She was granted permanent alinomy @a Rs. 200. 00 p. m. The Matrimonial suit was decreed resulting in an order of divorce between the parties. But no order was passed on the petition under S. 27 which was filed at the instance of the opposite party at the time of passing the decree in the Matrimonial suit. Subsequently, after the passing of the decree, the learned Additional District Judge by his order No. 51 dated 6-5-87 took up the application under S. 27 of the Act for consideration. He on consideration of the evidence of both sides allowed the application of the opposite party on contest and directed the husband, the present revisionist to return the articles mentioned in the schedule of the said application to the wife within 1 month of the passing of the order. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the husband has come up in revision. The petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of delay as there was delay of about 3 weeks in filing the application for revision. We are satisfied with the grounds taken in the application and condone the delay. ( 2 ) SRI P. K. Roy, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner in this revision has urged that the impugned order under S. 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act was passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court is without jurisdiction. The main thrust of his argument that the language of S. 27 of the Act clearly indicates that 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 in any proceeding under the Act and that the impugned order was not passed at the time of passing the decree. It has further been urged that the learned trying Judge did not make any provision in the decree for disposal of the property and as such the order passed long after the decree under S. 27 of the Act was passed without jurisdiction. ( 3 ) THE learned trying Judge in his judgment held when the point was urged before him that there was no impediment in passing the order under S. 27 of the Act after the passing of the decree. He did not of course, give any reason in support of his conclusion. ( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience S. 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 may be quoted: "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 wife. " The words "the Court may make such provisions in the decree as it deems just and proper" clearly convey that it is a discretionary power of the Court. The Court may or may not pass such order. In passing such order or incorporating any order in the decree the Court must act in a way as it deems just and proper. It further appears that the Court has a right to incorporate such order in the decree with respect to any property presented, on or about the time of marriage which belong jointly to both the husband and the wife. It is our experience that in a marriage the presentation and gifts are offered to both the spouses or one of the spouses only as a mark of affection, goodwill and blessings on the happy occasion of the marriage ceremony. When such marriage unfortunately, is broken by process of law, there is no point in retaining the gifts and presentation of the marriage by any of the spouses at the matrimonial home which is usually the home of the husband only to incite memories of pain and frustration instead of memories of pleasure on sustenance of marriage. When such marriage unfortunately, is broken by process of law, there is no point in retaining the gifts and presentation of the marriage by any of the spouses at the matrimonial home which is usually the home of the husband only to incite memories of pain and frustration instead of memories of pleasure on sustenance of marriage. Sri S. K. Roy, the learned Advocate representing the opposite party has referred to a decision: Surinder Kaur v. Madan Gopal, AIR 1980 Pandh 334 which although analyses the conditions of applicability of S. 27 in details does not solve the problem raised in this case. It does not decide as to when such order may be passed by the Court or whether the order must be passed at the time of passing of the decree and cannot be passed after the passing of the decree. ( 5 ) IN our view, the remedy being discretionary as the language indicates and give the Court the right to pass such order or orders as it deems just and proper and the use of the Words "may make such provisions in the decree" entitles the Court to pass the order even after the passing of the decree. The word "may" does not mean "must". In the present case there is one thing to be noted. The opposite party wife filed the application under S. 27 of the Act during the pendency of the Matrimonial proceeding and before the passing of the decree. The Court while passing the decree although passed an order for permanent alimony and maintenance under S. 25 of the Act omitted or preferred not to pass any order under S. 27 of the Act. The discretion must be exercised honestly and in the spirit of the statute. Aiyar's Judicial Dictionary 10th Edition. The statement, object and reason of the amended Hindu Marriage Act, 1976 clearly speak for avoiding multiplicity of litigation. The object of the drastic amendment effected in 1976 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 were mainly to liberalise the provision relating to divorce and to ensure expedition and remedy, remove anomalies in the applicability of the Act. The statement, object and reason of the amended Hindu Marriage Act, 1976 clearly speak for avoiding multiplicity of litigation. The object of the drastic amendment effected in 1976 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 were mainly to liberalise the provision relating to divorce and to ensure expedition and remedy, remove anomalies in the applicability of the Act. That being the case, it has never been intended that the omission of the Court to pass an order at the time of passing the decree under S. 27 of the Act would debar or prohibit the Court for all times to pass any order under the section. Had it been so, there would have been forfeiture of the matrimonial gifts and presentation at the ceremonial observance of marriage after their reception. Whenever any statute provides for expropriation or forfeiture of any money or goods or articles, it must be in explicit terms and it should clearly lay down the time limit after which the claim for such article would be clearly barred or would expire. There is nothing in S. 27 of the Act to indicate that the Court would be prevented from passing any order under S. 27 of the Act which it omitted to pass at the time of passing the decree, at a subsequent stage or at a post-decree stage. Rule of interpretation always dictates that the every statute should be interpreted on the side of reasonableness and applicability. ( 6 ) SO, on consideration of all the facts and circumstances and law on the point this Court is of the view that the order was passed legally and within the jurisdiction of the Court. So, the revisional application must be dismissed on contest with cost. And the rule stands discharged. The cost of the proceeding is assessed at Rs. 100. 00. 7shamsuddin AHMED, J. , I agree. Revision dismissed.