JUDGMENT This is an appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (in short, the "Act"), by the husband against a decree for divorce granted on a petition filed under section 13 of the Act by the wife, coupled with a direction for return of articles and ornament or their value as per list attached with the petition. It was not disputed that the appellant was married to the respondent. The petition for divorce was based on the ground of cruelty and on a further ground of remarriage by the husband. The appellant denied the allegation!', but as he failed to comply with an order for payment of interim alimony made under section 24 of the Act, his right to defend the petititon was closed and a decree for divorce and return of articles and ornaments, or their price was passed after recording the evidence of the respondent. Being aggrieved, the husband has preferred this appeal. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the decree for divorce passed by the Court below after closing the husband's right to defend the claim for devorce on the ground of non-payment of interim alimony calls for no interference. As discussed in paragraphs 3 to 13 of the impugned judgment, there was sufficient material for holding that the husband had been giving cruel treatment to the wife and that he had also taken second wife. The decree for divorce is, thus, well founded. So far as the dispute between the parties about the articles and ornaments etc. presented at the time of marriage is concerned, the Court below ought not have shut the doors of contesting the claim by the husband. It ought to have given an opportunity to the husband to prove what articles etc. were given to the wife at the time of her marriage. This could have been done even after passing a decree for divorce. As this opportunity was not given to the husband, I am of the view that the case must go back to the Court below for deciding this question afresh after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases. In the result, this appeal partly succeeds and it is hereby partly allowed. As this opportunity was not given to the husband, I am of the view that the case must go back to the Court below for deciding this question afresh after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases. In the result, this appeal partly succeeds and it is hereby partly allowed. The decree for divorce is maintained, but that for return of articles and ornaments, or their price is set aside and the case is sent back to the Court below with a direction to decide the dispute afresh after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce their evidence. This means that the respondent shall be entitled to give fresh or additional evidence in support of her case and the appellant shall have a right to adduce evidence in rebuttal. In view of partial success of this appeal and looking to the nature of relationship between the parties, I make no order as to costs of this appeal. However, the costs as awarded by the Court below shall prevail and be paid by the husband to the wife.