Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 718 (MP)

Vijay Kumar Jain v. Sunita Vijay Kumar Jain

2000-07-26

V.K.AGRAWAL

body2000
JUDGMENT V.K. Agrawal, J. 1. By this judgment both the above appeals filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short), are being disposed of, as they arise out of the judgment and decree dated 11-5-1999 in Hindu Marriage Case No. 61-A/1998 by Second Additional District Judge, Sehore. 2. Since the parties have filed counter appeals, in which their position as Appellant and Respondent is reversed, the parties would be described in this judgment as Petitioner/husband and Respondent/wife. 3. Undisputably, the parties are Hindus and were married according to Hindu rites and customs on 22-2-1992 at Jain Dharamshala, Sehore. A daughter and a son were born from the said wedlock. The Respondent/wife since May 1997 is residing with her parents at Bhopal, separately from her husband-the Petitioner. 4. The Petitioner/husband filed an application under Section 13 of the Act, seeking divorce from the Respondent/wife. It was averred by the Petitioner/husband that after about six months of the marriage, the Respondent/wife started misbehaving with him. She would humiliate the Petitioner/husband by saying that the Petitioner/husband was a man of no means, and was a begger, earning only Rs. 2,000/- per month, with whom she cannot continue to live. She would also say that she wanted to marry a rich person with whom she could live a life of comfort and luxury. However, Petitioner/husband bore the maltreatment, harassment and humiliation as above, at the hands of his wife-the Respondent, in order to save his family from breaking down. The Respondent/wife however continued in her misdemeanour as above and pressurised the Petitioner/husband to live separately from his parents. 5. It was further averred that in March 1993, the Respondent/wife mixed some poisonous substance in milk, and gave it to the Petitioner/husband, as a result of which the Petitioner fell seriously ill, and was admitted at Government Hospital, Sehore. However, later the Respondent/wife tendered apologies and assured that she would not repeat her conduct. The Petitioner/husband condoned the above misconduct and started living separately with his wife the Respondent, as desired by her. 6. It was further averred by the Petitioner that the Respondent/wife gave birth to a daughter on 23-3-1993. After about six months, the Respondent/wife again started quarreling with the Petitioner/husband and used to pressurise him to get himself transferred to Bhopal. The Petitioner/husband condoned the above misconduct and started living separately with his wife the Respondent, as desired by her. 6. It was further averred by the Petitioner that the Respondent/wife gave birth to a daughter on 23-3-1993. After about six months, the Respondent/wife again started quarreling with the Petitioner/husband and used to pressurise him to get himself transferred to Bhopal. On 14-5-1997, while the Respondent/wife was pregnant, she left her matrimonial home and went to her parents' home and started residing with her parents. She gave birth to a son on 25-5-1997 at Bhopal. The Petitioner/husband though was not even informed about the birth of the son; but, on enquiry made by him, on phone, he came to know about it. He thereafter went to the parents home of his wife at Bhopal. However, the parents and sisters of the Respondent/wife misbehaved with the Petitioner/husband who was insulted and was assaulted by them. The Petitioner/husband lodged report of the incident with Police Station T.T. Nagar, Bhopal. Thereafter, the father of the Respondent/wife got lodged a police report by the Respondent/wife, falsely alleging that the Petitioner/husband had demanded dowry. As a result of the said report the Petitioner/husband was taken in custody by the police. 7. The Petitioner/husband also averred that on account of cruelty meted out to him as above by his wife-the Respondent, it is not possible for him to live with her. The Petitioner/husband served the Respondent/wife notice dated 28-10-1997, asking the Respondent/wife to return back and to resume cohabitation with the Petitioner/husband. Since the wife did not return back to him, hence, this petition was filed by him praying for a decree of divorce. 8. The Respondent/wife has denied the above averments. It was averred by her that in fact the Petitioner/husband used to misbehave and treated her with cruelty. He demanded Rs. 10,000/- at the time of marriage for purchase of scooter, and on the Respondent/wife's father expressing his inability to pay the above amount, the Petitioner/husband misbehaved with her parents and abused them. The Petitioner/husband entertained suspicion regarding the character, of the Respondent/wife and used to cast aspersions on her and taunt her. He also used abusive language for the parents of the Respondent/wife. 9. The Respondent-wife denied that she administered poison in milk to the Petitioner/husband. The Petitioner/husband entertained suspicion regarding the character, of the Respondent/wife and used to cast aspersions on her and taunt her. He also used abusive language for the parents of the Respondent/wife. 9. The Respondent-wife denied that she administered poison in milk to the Petitioner/husband. She averred that on 13-4-1992, the Petitioner/husband had given her some poisonous substance due to which the Respondent/wife fell ill and was treated in the hospital. The Petitioner/husband however tendered apology and persuaded the Respondent/wife and her parents not to lodge report of the incident with the police, hence report of the incident was not lodged by her. She has further averred that her husband the Petitioner, used to assault, misbehave, abuse and demand large sums of money from the Respondent/wife and her parents. It was further averred by the Respondent/wife that the Petitioner/husband was informed about the birth of their son on 27-5-1997 on phone, upon which the Petitioner/husband came to Bhopal. However, he assaulted the parents of the Respondent/wife. The Respondent/wife thereafter lodged a report with the police, upon which a case has been registered against him which is pending consideration in the Court, at Bhopal. The Petitioner/husband subsequently also abused and threatened the Respondent/wife, regarding which she lodged report with the police on 27-8-1997. She also averred that the Petitioner/husband be directed to return the articles, as per list filed by her, under Section 27 of the Act. 10. The learned trial Court framed issues as to whether the Respondent/wife treated the Petitioner/husband with cruelty and as to whether the Respondent/wife was entitled to get special cost. The learned trial Court held that the Respondent/wife treated the Petitioner/husband with cruelty. It was also held by the trial Court that the Respondent/wife had given to the Petitioner/husband Rs. 45,000/- for purchase of house, Rs. 14,000/- for purchase of scooter and Rs. 35,000/ were paid to the Petitioner for arrangement of marriage between the parties, and the expenditure of the Respondent/wife was of Rs. 1,000/- . The Petitioner/husband was directed to pay Rs. 1,01,000/- to the Respondent/wife. 11. A decree for divorce under Section 13 of the Act was granted to the Petitioner/husband by the impugned judgment, but the trial Court directed that the payment of the above sum of Rs. 1,01,000/- would be a condition precedent for the above decree of divorce, becoming effective. 12. The Petitioner/husband was directed to pay Rs. 1,01,000/- to the Respondent/wife. 11. A decree for divorce under Section 13 of the Act was granted to the Petitioner/husband by the impugned judgment, but the trial Court directed that the payment of the above sum of Rs. 1,01,000/- would be a condition precedent for the above decree of divorce, becoming effective. 12. Aggrieved by the above judgment and decree, the Petitioner/husband has filed First Appeal No. No. 539/1999. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/ husband has submitted that since the trial Court has held that the Respondent/ wife had treated the Petitioner/husband with cruelty, therefore an unqualified decree for divorce under Section 13(l)(ia) of the Act ought to have been granted and payment of the sum of Rs. 1,01,000/- could not have been made a condition precedent to the decree for divorce becoming effective. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/husband has also challenged award of Rs. 1,01,000/by the impugned judgment. It has been submitted that the Respondent/wife had nowhere averred or claimed the above amount in her written statement. It was pointed out that the Respondent/wife in para 19 of her written statement only mentioned that the household goods were kept in their house at Sehore, and the Petitioner/husband had taken away those articles, taking advantage of the fact that the Respondent/wife started residing at Bhopal. It was further averred in para 19 of her written statement that the list of household articles is being enclosed therewith. It has been submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/husband in the above context that the Respondent/wife has failed to plead and prove that the property as above was presented at or about the time of marriage jointly to both the Petitioner/ husband and Respondent/wife. It has, therefore, been submitted that in the absence of proper pleading and proof, the order regarding payment for the above sum of Rs. 1,01,000/- could not have been passed under Section 27 of the Act. 13. The Respondent/wife has filed First Appeal No. 390/1999 against the judgment and decree of divorce granted under Section 13 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/wife has submitted that the trial Court erred in recording the finding that the Respondent/wife treated the Petitioner/husband with cruelty. It was submitted that the dates and particulars of the cruelty were not specifically pleaded by the Petitioner/husband. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/wife has submitted that the trial Court erred in recording the finding that the Respondent/wife treated the Petitioner/husband with cruelty. It was submitted that the dates and particulars of the cruelty were not specifically pleaded by the Petitioner/husband. It was further submitted that it was the Respondent/wife who suffered cruel treatment at the hands of her husband the Petitioner, and therefore, the Petitioner/husband could not be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. It has further been submitted that the Petitioner/husband according to his own averments in his petition pleaded that he had condoned the cruelty alleged against the Respondent/wife, and has also pleaded that the parties lived amicably after March, 1993 when the Respondent/wife is alleged to have administered poisonous substance to him. Therefore, the alleged cruelty as above could not constitute a ground for granting a decree of divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Act. Reliance was placed on Dr. N. G Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534 , J. L. Nanda v. Veena Nanda, AIR 1988 SC 407 and Devidas v. Gyanwati alias Shed Rani, 1992 MPU 778 : AIR 1993 MP 14 . It has further been submitted that besides general allegation of abuse and insult, no specific instances of cruelty have been pleaded by the Petitioner. Hence, he is not entitled to get a decree for divorce on such vague and general allegations. In support of above submission reliance was placed by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/wife on Amarjit Paul Singh v. Kiran Bala, AIR 1985 P&H 356 . 14. In view of the above contentions, it has first to be considered as to whether the trial Court was justified in holding that the Respondent/wife treated the Petitioner/husband with cruelty? 15. In the above context it may be noticed that besides allegation of persistent humiliation, harassment and insult meted out by the Respondent/wife, the Petitioner/husband has also pleaded a few specific instances of serious nature. One of such incident is alleged to have occurred in March, 1993. It was averred in the above context that the Petitioner/husband was given some poisonous substance mixed in milk by the Respondent/wife. On drinking the same, the Petitioner/husband fell seriously ill and was admitted in the Government hospital, Sehore. He had to take intensive treatment, as would be clear from the averments in para 3 of the petition. It was averred in the above context that the Petitioner/husband was given some poisonous substance mixed in milk by the Respondent/wife. On drinking the same, the Petitioner/husband fell seriously ill and was admitted in the Government hospital, Sehore. He had to take intensive treatment, as would be clear from the averments in para 3 of the petition. The Respondent/wife denied the above allegations and averred in para 11 of her written statement that, on 13-4-1992, the Petitioner/husband by exercising deception gave her water to drink, in which poisonous substance was mixed. The Respondent/wife after drinking it, fell seriously ill, and was treated at the Government hospital. 16. The second specific incident as pleaded by the Petitioner/husband in his petition is that after the birth of his son on 25-5-1997 he went to Sehore, where he was assaulted by the father and sister of his wife the Respondent. The Respondent/wife has also denied the above averments. She in her written statement averred that it was the Petitioner/husband who had assaulted her parents and other family members. 17. So far as the first incident of administering poison is concerned, the Petitioner Vijay Kumar Jain (AW/1) has stated that the Respondent/wife Smt. Sunita Jain on 13-4-1992 administered some poisonous substance in milk, on drinking which he fell seriously ill. The statement as above of the Petitioner/husband is supported by the statement of his brother-in-law Vijay Kumar Jain (AW/3) and Balmukund Paliwal (AW/2), who have stated that they had visited the Petitioner/husband on hearing about his ailment, who told them that his wife had administered poisonous substance to him. 18. It may be noted in the above context that the Respondent Sunita Jain (N.A.W./1) in para 20 of her statement has admitted that her husband the Petitioner got admitted in the hospital and received treatment. Similarly N. C. Jain (N. A. W/2) the father of the Respondent Sunita, has also admitted in para 10 of his statement that the Petitioner/husband Vijay was admitted in hospital and had received treatment. It may be noted that in his notice Ex. P/1 dated 28-10-1997 also, the Petitioner has made averments as above. The said notice has not been replied to by the Respondent/wife. The Respondent/wife has not led satisfactory evidence to substantiate her counter-allegation that her husband administered poison to her. 19. It may be noted that in his notice Ex. P/1 dated 28-10-1997 also, the Petitioner has made averments as above. The said notice has not been replied to by the Respondent/wife. The Respondent/wife has not led satisfactory evidence to substantiate her counter-allegation that her husband administered poison to her. 19. Therefore, from the evidence led by the Petitioner as also the admissions as mentioned above, of the Respondent/wife the Petitioner's allegation that he was administered poison by the Respondent/wife appears to be duly substantiated and deserves to be accepted. 20. In regard to the second specific instance of cruelty, the Petitioner/husband has also stated that he was not informed about the birth of his son, while his wife the Respondent was at her parents home at Bhopal. However, he made enquiries about the same on telephone and on coming to know of the birth of his son, he went to Bhopal, where he was assaulted by the parents of the Respondent/wife as well as by other family members. He has stated that he lodged the report Ex. P/7 of the said incident. He has also stated that he got himself treated for the injuries received in the incident and the out door ticket of the hospital at Bhopal is Ex. P/6. He has also lodged a report which is as per Ex. P/22. The documents as above corroborate the statement of the Petitioner/husband, and indicate that he was assaulted by the parents and other family members of the Respondent/wife. 21. It may be noted in the above context that the Respondent/wife has also filed several documents including the police report lodged by her. It may be noticed in the above context that, the report Ex. P/6, in which the incident as above was reported, appears to have been lodged on 5-4-1998 i.e. after about one year after the alleged incident as above. Such delayed report by the Respondent/wife regarding the incident would clearly indicate the falsity of her case. No report has been lodged by her with the police immediately after the incident. The above conduct of the Respondent/wife is indication of the fact that the incident was not as is being set up by her, as an afterthought and as a counter-measure to the reports lodged by the Petitioner/husband. No report has been lodged by her with the police immediately after the incident. The above conduct of the Respondent/wife is indication of the fact that the incident was not as is being set up by her, as an afterthought and as a counter-measure to the reports lodged by the Petitioner/husband. In the above context, it is also noticed that no medical report etc., of the parents or any other family members of the Respondent/wife has been produced on her behalf to support her version. 22. It is also improbable that the Petitioner/husband after receiving the information of the birth of his son on his own enquiry, on his visit to the house of the parents of the Respondent/wife would assault the family members of the Respondent/wife. No independent evidence in that regard has been produced by the Respondent to substantiate her allegations as above. It is, therefore, clear that the version of the incident as given by the Respondent/wife is not worthy of belief. 23. The admitted position of the case is that the Petitioner/husband visited the house of the parents of the Respondent/wife after he came to know on his enquiries that the son was born to him. It is also clear that he had alleged maltreatment and assault on him jointly by the parents and sisters of the Respondent/wife. His version is duly supported by documentary evidence, including the report lodged with the police by him as well as his medical report. The counter version given by Respondent/wife, that in fact her parents were assaulted by her husband the Petitioner; is not only unnatural and improbable, but there is also no reliable evidence to substantiate it. In the circumstances, it is clear that the Respondent/wife and her parents maltreated and assaulted the Petitioner/husband, when he went to her parent's home at Bhopal. 24. Besides the above evidence of Petitioner, regarding cruelty meted out to him by his wife, the Petitioner/husband has also stated that his wife the Respondent always used to maltreat and humiliate him. He continuously pressurised and tortured him on petty matters. He has also stated that though he wanted to live with his widow mother but, he was not permitted to do so, by the Respondent/wife. Ultimately, the Petitioner/husband yielded to the mounting pressure of the Respondent/wife and has to live separately with her.Even thereafter, she continued to maltreat and insult him. He continuously pressurised and tortured him on petty matters. He has also stated that though he wanted to live with his widow mother but, he was not permitted to do so, by the Respondent/wife. Ultimately, the Petitioner/husband yielded to the mounting pressure of the Respondent/wife and has to live separately with her.Even thereafter, she continued to maltreat and insult him. The statement of Balmukund Paliwal (AW/2) corroborate the statement as above and would indicate that the Respondent/wife used to misbehave with the Petitioner/husband. The statement of Vijay Kumar Jain (AW/3) also lends support to the above statement of the Petitioner/husband. 25. As against the above, the Respondent/wife Smt. Sunita Jain (NAW/1) and his father N. C. Jain (NAW/2) have stated that the Petitioner/husband used to torture the Respondent/wife. However, her statement is highly exaggerated and is not consistent with her own pleadings, and does not deserve to be relied upon. 26. It would thus appear that the Respondent/wife has been persistently maltreating the Petitioner/husband. It also appears that on the report of Respondent/wife the police registered a case against the Petitioner/husband and he had also to remain in police custody. The Petitioner/husband is facing criminal trial on the report lodged by the Respondent/wife. Thus, the Petitioner/husband has led satisfactory evidence to show that the Respondent/wife has been treating him with cruelty. 27. The Learned Counsel for Respondent/wife has urged that the cruelty, if any, had been condoned by the Petitioner/husband, as is the admission and averment of the Petitioner. In the above context Learned Counsel for Respondent/wife has referred to the averment in para 3 of the petition filed by the Petitioner/husband, in which it has been averred by the Petitioner/husband that, even after the incident of March, 1993 in which poison was administered to him; he had condoned the conduct of Respondent/wife in the hope that there would be a change in her attitude in future. It has further been pleaded therein that thereafter the Petitioner started living separately with his wife/Respondent in the house allotted by M.P.E.B. It also appears that the Respondent/wife also gave birth to a daughter. 28. Learned Counsel for Petitioner in the above context submitted that the Petitioner having condoned the cruelty of Respondent/wife as above, cannot now complain of the same and cannot make it a ground to seek divorce. The Learned Counsel to support his contention relied upon the case of Dr. 28. Learned Counsel for Petitioner in the above context submitted that the Petitioner having condoned the cruelty of Respondent/wife as above, cannot now complain of the same and cannot make it a ground to seek divorce. The Learned Counsel to support his contention relied upon the case of Dr. N. G. Dastane, (supra), in which it was observed that evidence showing that the spouses led a normal sexual life even after a series of acts of cruelty by one spouse, is proof that the other spouse condoned that cruelty. Learned Counsel also sought support to his submission as above from J. L. Nanda (supra) and Devidas (supra), wherein it was held that as the spouses resumed living together for a long period after the act of cruelty, the act of cruelty can be deemed to have been condoned. 29. In the instant case the submission as above cannot be accepted. It is clear from what has been discussed above that the Respondent/wife not only treated the Petitioner/husband with cruelty prior to March, 1993 when the Respondent/wife administered poison to him; but even after the birth of their daughter in March 1993 and when parties started living together in a separate house; cruelty by the Respondent/wife continued and she did not mend her ways. She went away to her parents' home at Bhopal, without intimating her husband, the Petitioner and she did not even inform the Petitioner about the birth of his son. When the Petitioner visited her parents' home, at Bhopal after learning about the birth of his son; he was assaulted. He was injured in the said incident and had to take treatment. He also lodged the report of the incident with the police. Further on a report lodged on behalf of the Petitioner/husband was taken into custody by police and he is facing trial. 30. Therefore, it is obvious that the Respondent/wife instead of mending her ways and showing improvement in her behaviour continued to treat her husband with cruelty. In the circumstances, even if there is averment and admission of the Petitioner/husband that he condoned the earlier misdemeanour and ill-treatment of Respondent/wife, it would not amount to condonation; because the abuses, harassment and maltreatment by Respondent/wife continued and culminated in the assault on the husband by the family members of the Respondent/wife, in her presence. In the circumstances, even if there is averment and admission of the Petitioner/husband that he condoned the earlier misdemeanour and ill-treatment of Respondent/wife, it would not amount to condonation; because the abuses, harassment and maltreatment by Respondent/wife continued and culminated in the assault on the husband by the family members of the Respondent/wife, in her presence. In the circumstances the Respondent/wife cannot be permitted to raise the plea of condonation of her cruelty. 31. It may be noted in the above context that in the case of Dr. N. G. Dastane, (supra) relied upon by the counsel for Respondent/wife, it has been observed by the Supreme Court: But condonation of matrimonial offence is not to be likened to a full Presidential Pardon under Article 72 of the Constitution which, once granted, wipes out the guilt beyond the possibility of revival. Condonation is always subject to the implied condition that the offending spouse will not commit a fresh matrimonial offence, either of the same variety as the one condoned or of any other variety. "No matrimonial offence is erased by condonation. It is obscured but not obliterated. 32. It is clear from the above discussion that the Petitioner/husband has consistently been maltreated by the Respondent/wife; who even tried to administer poison to him. He was forced to live separately from his old widow mother. He was subjected to harassment. He had to remain in police custody and is facing criminal trial on the report lodged from the side of Respondent/wife. Therefore, the marriage has obviously been irretrievably broken and there are no chances of its retrieval. As has been laid down in Romesh Chander v. Savitri (1995) 2 SCC 7 , the continuance of such a marriage by itself would be a cruelty being dealt both emotionally and practically and the cruelty having been established a decree for divorce under Section 13(l)(ia) of the Act, deserves to be granted. Accordingly, the trial Court justifiably held that a decree for divorce deserves to be granted in favour of Petitioner/husband. 33. Learned Counsel for Petitioner/husband has next submitted that though the learned trial Court granted a decree for divorce in favour of the Petitioner/husband but the decree has been made conditional; as the learned trial Court has directed that decree of divorce would become effective, on the Petitioner/husband paying the amount. It has been submitted that the amount of Rs. 33. Learned Counsel for Petitioner/husband has next submitted that though the learned trial Court granted a decree for divorce in favour of the Petitioner/husband but the decree has been made conditional; as the learned trial Court has directed that decree of divorce would become effective, on the Petitioner/husband paying the amount. It has been submitted that the amount of Rs. 1,01,000/- awarded by the trial Court under Section 27 of the Act, was not justified, and that in any case, the payment of the same could not be made a condition precedent to the decree of divorce becoming effective. 34. The submissions as above appear to be justified. It is clear that in case a ground under Section 13(l)(ia) of the Act, is made out, the party establishing the same deserves a decree for divorce. A direction of payment of amount awarded under Section 27 of the Act could not be made a condition precedent for the decree of divorce becoming effective; as has been done by the learned trial Court. To that extent the trial Court's decree was erroneous and trial Court's decree deserves modification. 35. It may also be noticed that there is no prayer of the Respondent/wife for grant of amount of Rs. 1,01,000/- as has been awarded by the impugned judgment. It may further be noticed that under Section 27 of the Act, the trial Court is entitled to 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. 36. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/husband, that there was no justification for the learned trial Court to grant the amount of Rs. 1,01,000/- under Section 27 of the Act, deserves to be accepted. In the above context it is noticed that the Respondent/wife in her reply did not properly plead and claim the amount under Section 27 of the Act. The averments in the above regard are contained in additional pleadings in paras 9, 16, 17 and 19 of the written statement. It has been stated in para 9 therein that at the time of marriage Rs. 10,000/- were demanded for purchase of scooter by the Petitioner/husband. However, it does not appear from the said pleadings that the said amount was given to him. It has been stated in para 9 therein that at the time of marriage Rs. 10,000/- were demanded for purchase of scooter by the Petitioner/husband. However, it does not appear from the said pleadings that the said amount was given to him. Similarly in para 16, it has been stated that Rs. 50,000/- were asked for purchasing a plot and as his demand as above was not fulfilled, he abused the Respondent/wife and her sisters. However, it is not pleaded by the Respondent that the amount as above was paid to the Petitioner. In para 17 of the written statement it has been stated that Rs. 10,000/- were paid when the Respondent was pregnant on the demand of the Petitioner. Therefore, it would appear from the above pleadings of the Respondent/wife that except the payment of Rs. 10,000/- no other payment was made to the Petitioner. 37. In para 19 of the written statement the averment is that the house hold articles were kept in the house of Respondent/wife, which have been removed by the Petitioner/husband in her absence. It has further been averred therein that a list of these articles is being enclosed. However, no list of articles is found on record of the trial Court. Moreover, the Respondent/wife Sunita Jain, in her cross-examination in para 32 admitted that when she handed over the possession of the house to the department; she did not complain that household goods were not there. She has also admitted that the Petitioner/husband was not present, when she handed over possession of the house to the department. It would appear from the above conduct of the Respondent/wife, that her allegations that the Petitioner/husband had taken away all the household articles is false. It may further be pointed out that even if the Respondent/wife had been successful in establishing her allegation as above; she would not have been entitled to get an order under Section 27 of the Act, which could only be passed in respect of property presented, at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to the husband and the wife. In the instant case, there is no pleading or proof by the Respondent/wife that the household articles as above, were presented at or about the time of marriage. 38. In the instant case, there is no pleading or proof by the Respondent/wife that the household articles as above, were presented at or about the time of marriage. 38. Thus, in the above circumstances, claim of the Respondent/wife under Section 27 of the Act, on the above count could not have been allowed. 39. Thus, in the instant case, as noticed earlier there is no specific plea that articles or cash amount of Rs. 1,01,000/- was given jointly to the parties at or about the time of marriage and therefore, the grant of above amount by the impugned judgment to the Respondent/wife was not proper. It appears that the learned trial Court summarily discussed the matter in para 12 of the impugned judgment and held that Rs. 35,000/- were given regarding the management of the marriage; Rs. 45,000/- for purchase of the plot; Rs. 14,000/- were given by the Respondent/wife to the Petitioner/husband for repayment of scooter loan and Rs. 1,000/- are her expenses. However, the above amount can in no case be treated as presents given to the parties at or about the time of marriage without there being any plea as also reliable evidence in that regard. 40. Therefore, the trial Court fell in error in awarding the amount as above. Further, in no case, payment of the above amount could be made a condition precedent for the decree of divorce becoming effective. 41. The Learned Counsel for Respondent/wife in the above context submitted that the amount as above is not being claimed by the wife in this petition and the judgment in that regard be modified with the liberty to the Respondent/wife to move the trial Court separately under Section 27 of the Act. 42. In view of the circumstances and prayer as above, the award of Rs. 1,01,000/- granted by the trial Court in favour of the Respondent/wife deserves to be set aside. However, liberty is granted to the Respondent/wife to move an application under Section 27 of the Act in the trial Court, who would decide it on its merits. 43. Accordingly, the appeal of the Petitioner/husband (F. A. No. 539 of 1999) is partly allowed, and though the decree of divorce under Section 13(l)(ia) of the Act granted by the trial Court is affirmed, and the marriage between the parties is dissolved; but the direction of the trial Court for payment of Rs. 43. Accordingly, the appeal of the Petitioner/husband (F. A. No. 539 of 1999) is partly allowed, and though the decree of divorce under Section 13(l)(ia) of the Act granted by the trial Court is affirmed, and the marriage between the parties is dissolved; but the direction of the trial Court for payment of Rs. 1,01,000/- by the Petitioner/husband to the Respondent/wife is set aside, and the impugned judgment and decree stands modified to the above extent. The Respondent/wife shall be free to move the trial Court separately under Section 27 of the Act. The appeal filed by the Respondent/wife (F.A. No. 390/1999) against decree for divorce stands dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs of these appeals.