KOCHHAR, J. — This second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.10.1983 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2 Alwar in Civil Appeal No. 8/81 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 31.8.1976 passed by the learned Munsif No.2, Alwar in Original Civil Suit No. 149/73. The brief facts are as under: — The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and the defendant-appellant Dalli were married according to Hindu rites. Relations between the parties got strained and their marriage was dissolved by a consent decree passed by a competent court. Thereafter a suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 against the defendant -appellant as also against her father Chawadram (respondent No.2) and her brother Chhota (respondent No.3) with the allegations that at the time of marriage certain silver ornaments, as described in para 2 of the plaint, were given by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 to the defendant-appellant for wearing as chadhawa and the said ornaments are with the defendant -appellant who has been residing with the respondents No. 2 and 3. It was pleaded that since the marriage between the parties had been dissolved, the defendant-appellant had no right to keep those ornaments and was liable to return the same to the plaintiff-respondent No.l or to pay to him the value thereof amounting to Rs. 900/-. The suit was contested by the defendant, who denied that the ornaments in question were given by the plaintiff-respondent No.l to the defendant-appellant at all. They also pleaded that no suit for recovery of the said ornaments could be filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. After trial, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 31.8.1976 held that the plaintiff-respondent No.l had given to the defendant appellant, at the time of marriage, the above said ornaments and that the defendant-appellant is liable to return the same or to pay Rs. 900/- to the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. The appeal filed by the defendant-appellant having been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Alwar, the defendant-appellant has approached this court by filing this second appeal. (2). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. (3). 900/- to the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. The appeal filed by the defendant-appellant having been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Alwar, the defendant-appellant has approached this court by filing this second appeal. (2). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. (3). Shri M.I. Khan, the learned counsel for the defendant -appellant, has contended that even in accordance with the allegations in the plaint the ornaments in question became the stridhana of the defendant-appellant who became the absolute owner thereof and, as such, the plaintiff-respondent No.l. could not claim any right in respect thereof and that the learned lower courts committed grave legal error in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.l. The contention of Shri B.L. Pagaria, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No.l, on the other hand, is that the ornaments were given only for wearing as chadhawa and the defendant-appellant is bound to return the same. Shri Pagaria has submitted that according to the custom prevailing in Rajasthan the ornaments are given to a bride as chadhawa for the purpose of wearing, after borrowing them from relations and friends and that such ornaments have to be returned to the persons from whom they are borrowed and, as such, the bride cannot claim any right therein. It has also been contended by Shri Pagaria that even if the above said ornaments can be termed as stridhana of the defendant-appellant it will be a saudayika property which could be used by the plaintiff-respondent No.l in certain circumstances and, as such, it cannot be said that the defendant-appellant became the absolute owner thereof. (4). From the record I find that the claim made in the plaint was not based on any custom or on the ground that the ornaments in question had been borrowed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 from his relations and friends for the purpose of chadhawa at the time of marriage and were to be returned to the persons concerned, but , as noted above, the claim was made on the ground that the marriage between the parties having been dissolved the defendant-appellant had no right to retain them and was bound to return the same to the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. The first contention of Shri Pagaria therefore, cannot be accepted. The first contention of Shri Pagaria therefore, cannot be accepted. The facts pleaded by the plaintiff-respondent No.l, clearly show that the ornaments in question were given by him to the defendant-appellant without any condition or understanding. Property given or bequeathed to a Hindu female whether during maidenhood, coverture or widowhood by her parents and their relations or by her husband and his relation is stridhana according to all schools except that the Dayabhaga does not recognise immovable property given or bequeathed by husband to his wife as stridhana (See Article 126 in Mullas Hindu Law, Fifteenth Edition). (5). While dealing with the saudayika (stridhana) the Supreme Court in Pratibha Rani Vs. Suraj Kumar (1) held as under : — "It is, therefore, manifest that the position of stridhana of a Hindu married womans property during coverture is absolutely clear and unambiguous; she is the absolute owner of such property and can deal with it in any manner she likes: she may spend the whole of it or give it away at her own pleasure by gift or will without any reference to her husband. Ordinarily, the husband has no right or interest in it with the sole exception, that in times of extreme distress, as in famine, illness or the like, the husband can utilise it but he is morally bound to restore it or its value when he is able to do so. It may be further noted that this right is purely personal to the husband and the property so received by him in marriage cannot be proceeded against even in execution of a decree for debt." (6). It is thus clear that the saudayika becomes the absolute property of the wife and the husband has not right to claim it from her. In this view of the matter, the defendant-appellant became the absolute owner of the ornaments in question and the plaintiff-respondent No.l has no right to claim them from her and the learned lower courts have committed grave legal error in decreeing the suit of the husband. (7). In view of my above discussion, I accept this second appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the learned lower courts and dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.l with costs throughout.