JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela, in Original Suit/Civil Proceeding No. 12 of the 1996 u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. By the impugned order, the learned Judge, Family Court. while granting a decree of divorce has rejected the application of the defendant wife, filed u/s 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for return of the dowry articles Being aggrieved by such order, the defendant-wife has filed the present appeal. 2. While addressing on the merits of the appeal, learned Counsel for the parties have fairly conceded that since the appellant and the respondent are remaining separately for a reasonably long time, it would not at all be possible for them to live together. Accordingly, the decree of divorce passed by the learned Judge. Family Court, Rourkela is hereby confirmed. 3. We are left with the point as to whether the rejection of the appellant's application u/s 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act was just was the proper. Let us have a look at the brief facts of the case. 4. The marriage between the appellant and her husband was solemnized on 20.05.1990 according to Hindu rites. Prior to her marriage, the appellant belonged to the State of Madhya Pradesh. After the marriage, she joined her husband. Out of their wedlock, a daughter was born. However, alter some time, the family peace and amity was thoroughly disturbed and there was frequent quarrel, bickering and rancour, as a result of which the appellant had to leave the marital house and take shelter in her parental abode at Raigarh in Madhya Pradesn. The plaintiff-respondent filed an application before the learned Judge. Family Court, Rourkela for grant of a decree of divorce, which eventually appeared before the Lok Adalat, where both the parties amicably settled their differences and. accordingly, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed. It is the case of the defendant-appellant that even after passing of such a decree, the plaintiff-respondent did no; care to take her to his house. Therefore, she was forced to live with her brothers at Raigarh. Since the plaintiff-respondent did not make any provision for maintenance of the appellant or her daughter. It is the case of the defendant-appellant that even after passing of such a decree, the plaintiff-respondent did no; care to take her to his house. Therefore, she was forced to live with her brothers at Raigarh. Since the plaintiff-respondent did not make any provision for maintenance of the appellant or her daughter. She filed application u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Code of Criminal Procedure") before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Raigarh which was registered as J.S. 58 of 1993. Even though an order directing payment of maintenance was passed against the plaintiff-respondent, he wilfully defaulted to comply with the said order. In the meanwhile, just to avoid payment of maintenance, the respondent-husband filed an application u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for grant of a decree of divorce before the learned Judge, Family Court. Rourkela. 5. The plaintiff-respondent, on the other hand, had taken the plea before the Court below that the defendant had exhibited abnormal behaviour and did not take care of the family. She always wanted rich costumes and also did not take care of the respondent's mother, as a reason whereof, there was frequent quarrel between the appellant on one hand and the respondent on the other. Since she voluntarily abandoned the matrimonial house, she was not entitled to any maintenance. 6. During the pendency of the application filed u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the appellant filed a separate application u/s 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act for return of the dowry articles. In the said application, she had described the articles which she had taken at the time of marriage. The plaintiff-respondent has not specifically denied with regard to receipt of dowry articles at the time of marriage. On perusal of the evidence placed before us, we do not find that any plea has been taken by the respondent that those articles presented at the time of marriage have been subsequently taken away by the appellant. In the above situation, we have no other alternative but to hold that those articles are still lying with the plaintiff-respondent. The learned Judge. Family Court, has not discussed this point on merit but has dismissed the application on technical ground on account of non-compliance of the provision as enumerated under Rule 5(a) of the Family Courts (Court) Rules, 1988. In the above situation, we have no other alternative but to hold that those articles are still lying with the plaintiff-respondent. The learned Judge. Family Court, has not discussed this point on merit but has dismissed the application on technical ground on account of non-compliance of the provision as enumerated under Rule 5(a) of the Family Courts (Court) Rules, 1988. For better appreciation we quote below the said rules: 5(a) Application for initiation of a Civil Proceeding and reply thereto by the contesting party shall be verified in the manner provided for plaint and written statement in me Code of Civil Procedure. On a careful reading of the provision if the above rule, we gather a clear impression that such rule shall be applicable to the main application under the Family Courts Act. The learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela should have taken into consideration Rule 5(c) which is extracted hereunder: 5(c) Application for initiation if Miscellaneous proceeding and the objection thereto shall be supplied by affidavit. It goes without saying that the applicators filed by the appellant was neither supported by an affidavit nor by a declaration. But before, rejecting such application, a duty was cast on the learned Judge, Family Court, to call upon the appellant to rectify such defect. If after such opportunity being given, the party defaulted to remove the defect, then it was obligatory on the Court to dismiss the application on such ground. The learned Judge Family Court, not having complied with the said requirement, we are of the firm view that technical defect would not stand on the way to dispose of the application on merit. 7. We have already arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff-respondent has not returned the articles in question, which under law he is obliged to do From the facts situation, it has also merged at there had been an order passed u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure directing the plaintiff-respondent to pay maintenance Till date, no payment has been made by the respondent. The daughter who was burn out of the wedlock of the parties is aged about 11 years. In case there would be a decree for divorce, there should be sufficient provision for her maintenance education and marriage expenses. It is submitted that the plaintiff-respondent is working in the Rourkela Municipality as a Market Caretaker and is getting about Rs. 2,000/- per month as salary. In case there would be a decree for divorce, there should be sufficient provision for her maintenance education and marriage expenses. It is submitted that the plaintiff-respondent is working in the Rourkela Municipality as a Market Caretaker and is getting about Rs. 2,000/- per month as salary. In the above background, when there has been a decree for divorce, in our open on, sufficient provision should be made towards maintenance of the wife and Daughter apart from the education and marriage expenses of the daughter. Besides, the respondent has also make payment towards return of dowry articles. Instead of awarding amounts en separate heads, in order to meet the ends of justice, we direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 1.00,000/- to the appellant towards dowry articles as well as maintenance, such payment shall be made in Court. For the marriage expenses of the daughter, the respondent shall pay a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- in shape of Fixed Deposit Receipt of any Nationalised Bank for a period of eight years or till the daughter attains a majority, whichever s earlier. The fixed Deposit Receipt shall be filed in Court. 8. A submission has been made that since the plaintiff-respondent s a low paid employee, unless sufficient time is given, it will be extremely difficult for him to comply with the directions of this Court. Accordingly, we grant six month's time for the purpose. It is, however, made clear that in case the respondent fails to comply with any of the above direct one apart from facing other legal consequences he shall also be held liable for having committed contempt of this Court. 9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. P.K. Misra, J. 10. I agree.