Judgment Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. Challenge in this revision petition is to the order passed by Additional District Judge, Sonepat dated 25.02.2008 by which an application filed by the petitioner under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [for short "the Act"], has been dismissed. 2. Tersely, the petitioner filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act with an application under Section 27 of the Act for return of dowry articles which were alleged to be in possession of the respondent. The divorce petition was decided on 01.02.2005 in favour of the petitioner, but the application under Section 27 of the Act remained pending. The said application has been treated separately by the learned Court below in which the petitioner has alleged that on 12.02.2001, respondent had turned the petitioner out of her matrimonial home in wearing apparels and refused to return the dowry articles despite repeated requests. In reply, the respondent submitted that his marriage solemnized with the petitioner was a simple affair and all the articles of dowry/istridhan of the petitioner had already been recovered by her through police in case filed vide FIR No.29 of 2001 under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Rai and there is noting left with the respondent to be returned. He also alleged that list of dowry articles/istridhan is fictitious. The entire jewellery given by the respondent to the petitioner is already with her. 3. On 03.09.2005, issues were framed. The petitioner examined herself as PW1 and her father as PW2, whereas, the respondent appeared as RW2 and examined Jai Singh son of Kundan as RW1, besides tendering some documents. 4. The learned Court below dismissed the application of the petitioner observing that she had admitted in her cross-examination that after registration of the criminal case, dowry articles were recovered from the house of respondent. PW2 Rajpal also admitted that the petitioner got released those dowry articles from the respondent on superdari from the Court and that the list of dowry articles which were recovered from the respondent was signed by his daughter Kavita (petitioner). It was also observed that the alleged original list of dowry articles has not been produced before the Court. 5. PW2 Rajpal also admitted that the petitioner got released those dowry articles from the respondent on superdari from the Court and that the list of dowry articles which were recovered from the respondent was signed by his daughter Kavita (petitioner). It was also observed that the alleged original list of dowry articles has not been produced before the Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned Court below has erred in dismissing the application with regard to effecting of recovery of the jewellery articles mentioned in the list which were not recovered during proceedings of the criminal case and they are still in possession of me respondent. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his able assistance. 7. Section 27 of the Act provides that during the proceedings under the 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 the wife. Section 27 is attracted only when the property presented at or about the time of marriage is allegedly belong jointly to both the spouses. Even if the jewellery articles come within the scope of Section 27, but the petitioner was required to produce evidence to the effect that the jewellery items, mentioned in the list attached with the application filed by her under Section 27 of the Act, were purchased by her or her family members and at least those were given to her at the time of marriage. There is no evidence of any jewellery items nor there is any evidence to prove that the jewellery articles were purchased at the time of marriage and presented by the family members to her. In the absence of any cogent evidence, the Court cannot order the respondent for return of the jewellery items because before passing an order for return the jewellery items, the petitioner is required to establish, by way of cogent proof, the existence and delivery of jewellery items at the time of marriage to her by her parents or relatives. Moreover, the present revision petition has been filed after 2-1/2 years of the passing of the impugned order. 8. Moreover, the present revision petition has been filed after 2-1/2 years of the passing of the impugned order. 8. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.