JUDGMENT : G.R. Moolchandani, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.04.1999 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Civil Original Suit No. 24/1997. In brief, the appellant-plaintiff Smt. Urmila brought a suit before the trial court against the respondent-defendant-husband that stridhan given to respondent-defendant has not been returned by her husband and same was snatched away by respondent, the suit was objected to with pleadings that nothing was given in dowry nor anything of that nature was customary in their Gurjar society and further requested to reject the suit since no stridhan was overdue. On the basis of the pleadings, learned trial court framed following issues:- 1- vk;k okkfn;k izfroknh ls okn i= dh en ua-3 esa of.kZr L=h/ku dh jkf'k ,oa oLrqvks dks ikus dh vf/kdkjh gS\ & okfn;k 2- vk;k okfn;k izfroknh ls okn i= ds in ua-4 esa of.kZr tsojkr crksj L=h/ku izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gS\ & okfn;k 3- vk;k Qjhdsu ds lekt esa ngst izFkk dk izpyu u gksus ds dkj.k izfroknh dks dksbZ lkeku udn tsoj vkfn ugh fn;k\ &okfnk 4- vk;k izfroknh ds ikl okfn;k dk L=h/ku ds :Ik esa dksbZ /ku o lkeku ugha gS\ & izfroknh 5- vk;k nkok okfn;k ij iw.kZ U;k;'kqYd vnk ugh fd;k x;k gS\ & izfroknh 6- lgk;rkA 2. The appellant-plaintiff produced five witnesses and four documents were exhibited, whereas respondent-defendant also produced five witnesses. Learned trial court after examining and appreciating the evidence of both the sides decided issue number one and two against the appellant-plaintiff and found that the appellant-plaintiff was not entitled to seek any relief and suit was resultantly dismissed. 3. The appellant-plaintiff produced five witnesses and four documents were exhibited, whereas respondent-defendant also produced five witnesses. Learned trial court after examining and appreciating the evidence of both the sides decided issue number one and two against the appellant-plaintiff and found that the appellant-plaintiff was not entitled to seek any relief and suit was resultantly dismissed. 3. While pressing appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that both the sides have already settled their matrimonial relations through divorce but the respondent-husband has not returned cash and articles of stridhan to the appellant-wife, pointing out certain extract of statements of appellant-plaintiff, learned counsel has further argued that appellant has explicitly mentioned description of stridhan and articles given, at the time of marriage and in every marriage customary stridhan articles are given, which have not been returned so appellant is entitled to obtain return of all stridhan articles and money, which has wrongly been retained by respondent and has further said that the receipts of articles were already given to groom side despite the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence properly and erroneously passed the impugned judgment, so the appeal be accepted and the respondent be directed to return "stridhan" of appellant-plaintiff. Contrariwise learned counsel for the respondent-defendant has contended that there is no error in the impugned judgment, appellant did not adduce any satisfactory evidence before the trial court, regarding alleged "stridhan" and nothing of this nature, even arisen in the divorce matter, which was decided in 1996 and suit for alleged "stridhan" and articles was belatedly filed under wrong contentions of alleged "stridhan", which is not outstanding against the respondent, appellant-plaintiff has miserably failed even to adduce any documentary evidence with respect to alleged delivery of "stridhan" to the respondent, so appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard both the sides and perused the record. According to Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 giving and taking of dowry statutorily prohibited and Section 3(1) of Dowry Prohibition Act reads as under:- "3. 4. Heard both the sides and perused the record. According to Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 giving and taking of dowry statutorily prohibited and Section 3(1) of Dowry Prohibition Act reads as under:- "3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.- (1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable [with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than [five years, and with fine, which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more]: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than [five years]." Provisions of Section 3(2)(a) and (b) postulates:- "3(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,- (a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act; (b) presents which are given at the time of marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf):- Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act: Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bridge or any person related to the bridge, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the persons by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.] and as per this provision, the "presents", which are given at the time of marriage without any demand does not comprises dowry provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained according to the rules made under this Act and rules made under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act i.e. Rules of 1985 stipulates that :- "2. Rules in accordance with which lists of presents are to be maintained (1) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bride shall be maintained by the bride. Rules in accordance with which lists of presents are to be maintained (1) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bride shall be maintained by the bride. (2) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bridegroom shall be maintained by the bridegroom. (3) Every list of presents referred to in sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) - (a) shall be prepared at the time of the marriage or as soon as possible after the marriage; (b) shall be in writing; (c) shall contain: (i) a brief description of each present; (ii) the approximate value of the present; (iii) the name of the person who has given the present; and (iv) where the person giving the present is related to the bride or bridegroom, a description of such relationship; (d) shall be signed by both the bride and the bridegroom. (4) The bride or the bridegroom may, if she or he so desires, obtain on either or both of the lists referred to in sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) the signature or signatures of any other person or persons present at the time of the marriage." 5. Regarding nature of "Stridhan", in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Another reported in (1985) 2 SCC 370 , the Court after analyzing the classical texts opined that:- "It is, therefore, manifest that the position of stridhan of a Hindu married woman's 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. 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." In Rashmi Kumar (Smt) v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, AIR (1997) 2 SCC 397 while considering the issue, it is ruled that :- "9. A woman's power of disposal, independent of her husband's control, is not confined to saudayika but extends to other properties as well. Devala says: "A woman's maintenance (vritti), ornaments, perquisites (sulka), gains (labha), are her stridhana. She herself has the exclusive right to enjoy it. Her husband has no right to use it except in distress...." In N.R. Raghavachariar's Hindu Law - Principles and Precedents, (8th Edn.) edited by Prof. S. Venkataraman, one of the renowned Professors of Hindu Law para 468 deals with "Definition of Stridhana". In para 469 dealing with "Sources of acquisition" it is stated that the sources of acquisition of property in a woman's possession are: gifts before marriage, wedding gifts, gifts subsequent to marriage etc. Para 470 deals with "Gifts to a maiden". Para 471 deals with "Wedding gifts" and it is stated therein that properties gifted at the time of marriage to the bride, whether by relations or strangers, either Adhiyagni or Adhyavahanika, are the bride's stridhana. In para 481 at page 426, it is stated that ornaments presented to the bride by her husband or father constitute her Stridhana property. In para 487 dealing with "powers during coverture" it is stated that saudayika meaning the gift of affectionate kindred, includes both Yautaka or gifts received at the time of marriage as well as its negative Ayautaka. In respect of such property, whether given by gift or will she is the absolute owner and can deal with it in any way she likes. She may spend, sell or give it away at her own pleasure. 10. In respect of such property, whether given by gift or will she is the absolute owner and can deal with it in any way she likes. She may spend, sell or give it away at her own pleasure. 10. It is thus clear that the properties gifted to her before the marriage, at the time of marriage or at the time of giving farewell or thereafter are her stridhana properties. It is her absolute property with all rights to dispose at her own pleasure. He has no control over her stridhana property. Husband may use it during the time of his distress but nonetheless he has a moral obligation to restore the same or its value to his wife. Therefore, stridhana property does not become a joint property of the wife and the husband and the husband has no title or independent dominion over the property as owner thereof." 6. It is averred in the pleadings that the divorce decree was passed on 27.1.1996 in absence of evidence of respondent-defendant but nothing is disclosed whether pleadings with regard to demand for alleged dowry articles or "Stridhan" were raised in the divorce suit or not, neither this aspect has been dealt in the plaint of the suit under which the instant appeal has arisen. 7. Statements of plaintiff Urmila shows that she has herself said that one and half year to two years' time has since passed to the divorce, she has also said that ceremony of "Gauna" had taken place six months later to the marriage. Year, month and day are not known to her. She has also said that she ceremonised "nata" marriage with Ram Sahai Gurjara twelve months back. She has specifically asserted that % ;g lkeku tks geus fn;k] mldh jlhn is'k ugh dh gSA u tsoj dh dksbZ jlhn is'k dh gSA D;ksfd eq>s ,slk irk ugh FkkA^^ She has also narrated that from whom given articles were purchased is not known to her. She has specifically asserted that % ;g lkeku tks geus fn;k] mldh jlhn is'k ugh dh gSA u tsoj dh dksbZ jlhn is'k dh gSA D;ksfd eq>s ,slk irk ugh FkkA^^ She has also narrated that from whom given articles were purchased is not known to her. She has further said that ^^tks lkeku eq>s mrkjk Fkk] mldh eSus fjiksVZ dh FkhA fQj dgk fd eSus fjiksVZ ugh dh FkhA eq>s ik¡p lky igys NksM+ fn;k Fkk] ;s tsoj rc gh mrkjk FkkA^^ PW-2 Rathunath has said that ^^gekjs lekt esa igys ngst izFkk dk izpyu ugh FkkA^^ He has also said that he is unaware as to from where the articles were purchased and he did not know about goldsmith as well. PW-3 Gokal has also said in his cross-examination that he did not see Urmila, while going to her in-law's home and there is a "Jhaghra" system for "nata" settlement and under that system, the outgoing groom, receives valuables. He has further said that he did not witness, kind of ornaments, which were gifted to Urmila nor anybody conveyed it to him, he has further said that which jewellery was brought is not known to him nor he knows make of watch, radio or fan. PW-4 Suwalal has also said that he does not know make of T.V., cycle and radio nor it is in his notice that where from the same were purchased or got erected, it has also been said by this witness that Urmila has ceremonized "nata" in his village and there is a system of settlement of "Jhaghra" in their society, he has also accepted his relationship with father of Urmila. PW-5 Jagan Lal, father of Urmila has said ^^yM+ds okys esjh yM+dh ds fy, tsoj ysdj vk;s Fks] ijUrq gekjs iapkx us eukdj fn;k dgk fd vki bldks vius ?kj ij gh igukuk^^] in his cross-examination, he has further said that he does not know specific nature of articles nor is aware as to what was given by which person and how much cash was received, he did not take account of these things and even did not witness as to what items were brought by groom-side, which is contrary to the views of other witnesses. He has also said that there is no system of "Jhaghra" prevalent in their society, which is obviously incorrect in view of testimony of other witnesses. 8. He has also said that there is no system of "Jhaghra" prevalent in their society, which is obviously incorrect in view of testimony of other witnesses. 8. DW-1 Harimohan has said that there is no system of dowry prevalent in their society and there is a system of "Jhaghra" in their society and has denied retention of any stridhan articles. 9. DW-2 Shankar has said that :- ^^gekjs ;gkW yM+ds okyk yM+dh okys ls ;g dgrk gS] fd gedks Nksjh ns nksA ogkW ges /ku ek;k rks feyrh ugha gS] D;ksafd gekjk lekt xjhc gS] ysu nsu dk fjokt ugha gS] cPph okyk ds ;gkW tkdj gkFk tksM+rs gSA^^ DW-3 Shri Narayan, father of hari Mohan has said that ^^gekjs lekt esa ngst dk dksbZ ysu&nsu ugh gksrk gS gekjs ;gkW ngst dh dksbZ ekWx ugh gksrh gS gEkkjs lekt es ge yMdh okys ds ukSgjs djrs gS] gekjs lekt esa cPph dh dher gS] cPps dh dher ugh gS gjheksgu dks ngst esa dksbZ lkeku ugh fn;k x;k FkkA lkeku] udn :i;k] dU;knku oxSjk es dqN ugh fn;kA dksbZ 5&10 :i;s dh pht nh FkhA eSus FkSyh 'kdaj dks nh FkhA eSus dM+h Ms+<+ fdyks dh] nks rksyk dk xqyhcUn lksus dk] vk/kh fdyks dk dMwY;k] vk/kh fdyks pkWnh dh d.kdyh] vk/kk fdyks ds vkaoyk o Vkd o ,d uFk lksus dh p<+kbZ FkhA ;g tsoj txu vkSj mfeZyk ds ikl vkt Hkh gS mfeZyk vc bl le; jaoktuk Mwaxj gSA^^ 10. Exhibit one, copy of Divorce judgment recites ^^mlds lkFk ekjihV djus yxs rFkk [kkuk diM+k Hkh ugh fn;k] mlds tks tsojkr Fks mUgs vizkFkhZ us mlls Nhu dj 'kjkc] tq, ij L=h xeu esa cckZn dj fn;k vkSj mlds ckn ngst ugha nsus ds dkj.k mls ekj ihV dj ?kj ls fudky fn;k] bl dkj.k mldk vius ifr ds lkFk jguk laHko ugh gSaA^^ and issue number one has also been decided with these kind of observations and no such issue has been framed in the divorce petition relating to outstanding of dowry articles or stridhan. Ex. 1 also shows that the petition for divorce was presented in 1995 with clear pleadings that the belongings were ruined on evils of intoxication, gambling and illicit relations by respondent-defendant and no relief was sought in the said divorce petition for return of alleged stridhan. Ex. 1 also shows that the petition for divorce was presented in 1995 with clear pleadings that the belongings were ruined on evils of intoxication, gambling and illicit relations by respondent-defendant and no relief was sought in the said divorce petition for return of alleged stridhan. The said divorce petition was filed by Smt. Urmila against her husband hari Mohan, which was decreed on 27.1.1996. Examination of evidence discloses that appellant as well as respondent have solemnized their subsequent remarriages after divorce. 11. Entire evidence, which has been adduced by appellant-plaintiff is not sufficient to establish as to what kind of alleged stridhan articles were gifted and admittedly there is no receipt of their purchases, which has also been admitted by all the witnesses of the appellant-plaintiff. The provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act for exchange of gifts has also not been adhered to for want of which rendering of "stridhan" articles is not established nor proved, so the appellant/plaintiff has failed to give positive evidence. In view of aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find any infirmity in the judgment impugned, hence is reluctant to interfere with the same. Therefore, instant appeal is bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed. Cost easy.