JUDGMENT 1. By Court Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Appellants are husband and father-in-law aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 4th May 2016 passed in M.M. Case No.39 of 2015 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa for return of the women''s estate to the tune of Rs. 7,26,979/- to the petitioner/respondent herein in terms of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 3. The case of the petitioner/respondent herein as pleaded before the learned Family Court asserts as follows: Marriage between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 therein was solemnized as per the Hindu rites and rituals on 22nd April 2008 at Patna. They lived under the guardianship of respondent no.2 father-in-law/appellant no.2 herein who was the Karta of the family. A female child was born on 30th November 2009. The husband and the father-in-law received ornaments, costly cloths, furniture and other household articles from the parents and relatives of the petitioner wife as described in the plaint and enumerated hereunder : 1. Chain worth of - Rs. 28,750/- 2. Locket worth of - Rs. 13,800/- 3. Mala worth of - Rs. 8050/- 4. Om locket worth of- Rs. 4025/- 5. Ring worth of - Rs. 6900/- 6. Jhumki worth of - Rs. 16100/- total Rs. 86825/- as per receipt enclosed as Annexure-1. Items of silver ornaments gifted by the parents are given below : 1. Poujeb worth of - Rs. 6050/- 2. Leg full worth of - Rs. 5720/- 3. Bichhiya worth of - Rs. 440/- 4. Petty worth of - Rs. 5500/- 5. Payal worth of - Rs. 2200/- 6. Guchha worth of - Rs. 1650/- 7. Katori worth of - Rs. 11770/- total Rs. 33,330/- as per receipt enclosed as Annexure-2. Items of gold ornaments given by entire family of petitioner on the occasion of marriage, are necklace, four gold bangles, golden mangalsutra, mangal sutra in black pearl, five rings, golden nose ring, golden head locket, three layer golden Jhumki, golden ear ring, golden tops, Braj Bali gold, gold nose pin, golden chain with locket, golden Bindi, Takpat dholna; silver items- Poujeb, Payal two pieces, Bichiya, Kamardhani, silver kiya; Items of costly sarees given by parents : 1. Lahanga Saree - Rs. 28500/- 2. Banarsi Saree - Rs. 6500/- 3. Banarsi Saree - Rs. 8050/- 4. Brasoo Saree - Rs. 7500/- 5. Chifoon Saree - Rs. 8080/- 6. Lahanga Saree - Rs. 28500/- 2. Banarsi Saree - Rs. 6500/- 3. Banarsi Saree - Rs. 8050/- 4. Brasoo Saree - Rs. 7500/- 5. Chifoon Saree - Rs. 8080/- 6. Cotton Slub Saree - Rs. 7250/- 7. Chiffon Saree - Rs. 6500/- 8. Georgette Saree - Rs. 5200/- 9. Net Saree - Rs. 6050/- 10. Printed Saree five pieces - Rs. 15250/- Total - Rs. 98880/- xxx xxx xxx 1. Lahanga Saree - Rs. 28500/- 2. Banarsi Saree - Rs. 6500/- 3. Banarsi Saree - Rs. 8050/- 4. Brasoo Saree - Rs. 7500/- 5. Chifoon Saree - Rs. 8080/- 6. Cotton Slub Saree - Rs. 7250/- 7. Chiffon Saree - Rs. 6500/- 8. Georgette Saree - Rs. 5200/- 9. Net Saree - Rs. 6050/- 10. Printed Saree five pieces - Rs. 15250/- Total - Rs. 98880/- xxx xxx xxx 6 Velvete Sarees - Rs. 5700/- 6 Lahanga Sarees - Rs. 5100/- 2 Raj Shahi Sarees - Rs. 2100/- 3 Loee Saree - Rs. 6270/- 5 Dupion Silk Sarees - Rs. 1450/- 5 Pure cotton sarees - Rs. 2650/- 5 Georgette Sarees - Rs. 4250/- 2 Sarees - Rs. 1840/- 5 Simple sarees - Rs. 8250/- Total - Rs. 37610/- 4. She alleged that under full faith in the respondents all these properties were entrusted to them as they stated that they were living in a lonely rented house and the place was not safe for wearing or keeping them with herself. She further alleged torture on non-fulfilment of demand of dowry of Rs. 10 lakhs. When she demanded her stridhan on a number of times, they refused to do. Respondent husband solemnized second marriage with one Juhi Kumari daughter of Satyendra Singh of village Morbey, P.S. Manjhiaon, District Garhwa due to non-fulfilment of the demand on the part of the petitioner. She instituted a case under Sections 498A, 494 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act being G.R. Case No.2420/2012 which was pending. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent wife at this stage, informs that the second marriage between the respondent-husband with Juhi Kumari has been annulled by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa vide judgment dated 21st April 2016 passed in M.M. Case No.60/2015 under Section 11 read with Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act instituted by the petitioner-wife/respondent herein. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent wife at this stage, informs that the second marriage between the respondent-husband with Juhi Kumari has been annulled by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa vide judgment dated 21st April 2016 passed in M.M. Case No.60/2015 under Section 11 read with Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act instituted by the petitioner-wife/respondent herein. Petitioner in her plaint further stated that the criminal case being G.R. Case No.2420/2012 was later on compromised during mediation but they refused to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement as they did not return the ornaments, etc. Due to nonappearance of the mother of the respondent no.1/husband before the learned C.J.M., Garhwa, while executing process under Section 83 Cr.P.C., certain articles were seized by the Garhwa Police which was enclosed as Annexure-6 and adduced as Ext.10. She accordingly claimed that the stridhan property was exclusive to her and could not be retained by the respondents. The petitioner had earlier filed a petition before the Garhwa Police on 9th August 2013 when she had been driven out from her matrimonial home after retaining all the ornaments and costly cloths which was enclosed as Annexure-7. 6. Respondents filed a written statement on notice and inter-alia pleaded as under : 7. It was contended that the petitioner and respondent no.1 did not live under the guardianship of respondent no.2. On 14th April 2010 petitioner left her matrimonial home on her own will with her father in absence of respondent along with her all ornaments and women''s estate. Husband had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights being M.M. Case No.54/2010 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was decided ex-parte on 31st May 2011 as the petitioner did not appear to contest it. They denied that any stridhan was ever gifted to the petitioner and was in custody of the respondent. Petitioner never possessed any such property. Therefore, there was no question of retaining it. Petitioner had also filed several cases during pendency of divorce proceeding against the respondents in order to humiliate them. They also contended that she had received her articles in the house of the respondent on 6th December 2013. Therefore, suit deserved to be dismissed. 8. The following issues were framed for adjudication : (i) Whether this case is maintainable ? (ii) Whether father of the petitioner gave gift etc. They also contended that she had received her articles in the house of the respondent on 6th December 2013. Therefore, suit deserved to be dismissed. 8. The following issues were framed for adjudication : (i) Whether this case is maintainable ? (ii) Whether father of the petitioner gave gift etc. which are women''s estate, as mentioned in the petition ? (iii) Whether petitioner is entitled to take back the Women''s estate u/s 27 of Hindu Marriage Act ? 9. Petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and adduced the following documentary evidence : Exbt.1- Purchase receipt of gold ornaments dated 14.3.2008 issued by Alankar Jeweller of Kanpur in favour of the petitioner including gold chain, locket, jhumka and om locket etc. worth of Rs. 86,825/- marked with objection. Exbt.2- marked with objection which is purchase receipt of silver ornaments issued on 14.3.2008 in favour of the petitioner worth of Rs. 33330/- by Alankar Jewellers of Kanpur. Exbt.3- Purchase receipt of cloths issued by Hatim Emporium, Kanpur worth of Rs. 98880/- issued in the writing and signature of its proprietor Hatim for different types of costly sarees. Exbt.4- Purchase receipt dated 2.4.2008 issued under the pen and signature of Hatim, the proprietor of Hatim Emporium for different types of ordinary sarees. Exbt.5- C.C. of report of Mediation Centre with agreement dated 31.5.2013 bearing signature of both the parties, which was Ext.C in M.M. Case No.96/12 filed u/s 13 of HM Act between the parties (Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. Ruchi Singh). Exbt.6- C.C. of petition dated 9.8.2013 of petitioner submitted to the O/C of Mahila P.S. which was already marked as Ext.''H'' on 6.3.2014. 10. Father of the petitioner appeared as P.W. 2 and supported Ext.1 to 4. He also adduced the following documents which were marked for identification : I.D. mark X/2: Photographs of petitioner and respondent no.1 on the occasion of marriage vide para-26 of examination-in-chief. I.D. mark ''I'' : C.D. of ornaments, which has been marked with objection. 11. P.W.3 brother of the petitioner also deposed in her favour and proved the following documents : Ext.7- Deposit slip dated 25.3.2008 revealing deposit of cash of Rs. Four Lakh in S.B. Account No.11468976159 of Ramadhar Singh by the father of petitioner. Ext.8- Bank passbook of Sudhir Kumar Singh, father of petitioner vide A/c No.01190009270/10409381056 showing debit of Rs. Four Lakh through cheque no.277207 on 25.3.2008. Four Lakh in S.B. Account No.11468976159 of Ramadhar Singh by the father of petitioner. Ext.8- Bank passbook of Sudhir Kumar Singh, father of petitioner vide A/c No.01190009270/10409381056 showing debit of Rs. Four Lakh through cheque no.277207 on 25.3.2008. P.W.4 and 5 were also adduced by the petitioner. 12. The father-in-law was examined as O.P.W.1. In his evidence, statement of State Bank A/c No.10409381056 of the respondent no.1 husband/appellant no.1 herein was adduced and marked as Ext.X/3 for identification. Since it was computer generated and required no authentication, it was marked as Ext.9. Ext.10 was the certified copy of the seizure list dated 6th December 2013 showing handing over of 23 items including some sarees and car. The wife of the respondent no.2/mother-in-law was examined as O.P.No.2. 13. Learned family court proceeded to determine the Issue Nos. (ii) and (iii) together and discussed the evidence of each of the witnesses. Relying upon Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the learned court dealt with the contention of the claim of the petitioner that movable or immovable property obtained by a Hindu wife before or after marriage becomes her absolute property which has not been denied by the respondents. As per Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act any property gifted to the wife exclusively cannot become Women''s Estate of wife due to the word ''Joint'' used therein. Next question required to be answered was whether she had got her property from her parents and her in-laws. Petitioner had claimed that properties were gifted as per Annexure-1 to 4 by her parents and respondent gifted property mentioned in the plaint. Learned family court observed that as per the legal position under Sections 14 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, any property gifted to the wife exclusively cannot become women''s estate of wife due to the word joint under Section 27 of Hindu Succession Act, but as per the statement of the petitioner contained in the plaint respondent had refused to return her stridhan and that para-7 of the written statement indicated that no property had been gifted to the petitioner by them. As such Annexure-5 of the plaint revealed that respondent admitted that properties were gifted to the petitioner. Annexure-6 also revealed that some articles were returned to the petitioner on 6th December 2013 by the Police. P.W.1 supported her case in the examination-in-chief. As such Annexure-5 of the plaint revealed that respondent admitted that properties were gifted to the petitioner. Annexure-6 also revealed that some articles were returned to the petitioner on 6th December 2013 by the Police. P.W.1 supported her case in the examination-in-chief. She stated that by virtue of Ext.1 gold ornaments described therein were purchased and given in the marriage, vide Ext.2 silver ornaments were also given in her marriage. Further costly sarees as mentioned in Ext.3 and ordinary sarees as mentioned in Ext.4 were also given on the occasion of her marriage. The aggregate value of which was described in Ext.1 to 4 as Rs. 2,56,645/-. She further stated that proprietor of Alankar Jewellers, from where it has been purchased, could not be adduced as they had to deal large number of people daily. The learned court also believed that examination of such jewellery dealer of Kanpur would lead to delay of the proceeding and incurring heavy expenses on the part of the petitioner and subjecting her to much inconvenience. She admitted that Exts.1 to 4 did not bear any bureau of deduction of sale tax. Therefore, they may be relied upon only on corroboration from other evidence of giving such items. She stated that on the date of marriage i.e. 22nd April 2008 photographs were taken which show the gifting of ornaments of gold. She further enumerated the items gifted by her in-laws at para-18 of her statement namely necklace set, four gold bangles, golden Mangalsutra, Mangalsutra in black pearl, five rings, golden nose ring, golden head locket, three layer golden Jhumka, golden ear ring, golden tops, Braj Bali gold, gold nose pin, golden chain with locket, golden Bindi, Takpat Dholna which were found consistent to pleadings but were subjected to corroboration from credible evidence. She admitted at para-5 of the cross-examination that videographers were not local, therefore she could not tell their names. She denied that on the occasion of marriage she had worn artificial ornaments. She denied that her husband and father-in-law did not give any stridhan to her. She referred to M.M. Case No.96/2012 filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by her husband. Ext.5 was the certified copy of the agreement entered into at the mediation centre on 31st May 2013 which was not acted upon. No ornaments were handed over till that date. She referred to M.M. Case No.96/2012 filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by her husband. Ext.5 was the certified copy of the agreement entered into at the mediation centre on 31st May 2013 which was not acted upon. No ornaments were handed over till that date. She also referred to the seizure of certain properties by the Police during execution of processes in connection with the dowry case for appearance of her mother-in-law. Ext.5 agreement between the parties supported her evidence at para-3. Ext.10 further revealed that out of 23 items, no items including gold or silver ornaments, as mentioned in Ext.1 and 2 were taken in seizure. It meant that till 6th December 2013 when the execution of processes were made she was not handed over ornaments, etc. She also referred to the written application made before the Garhwa Police, certified copy of which was dated 9th August 2013 (Ext.6). P.W.2 supported the case of the petitioner. He stated that he transferred Rs. 4 lakhs in the account of the father-in-law/appellant no.2 herein through cheque and gave one Alto car and Rs. 1 lakh as cash besides ornaments. However, his statement of making payment of Rs. 1 lakh in cash was not supported by any credible evidence. P.W.2 supported the evidence of P.W.1 regarding purchase of gold and silver ornaments, as well as sarees ordinary and costly in his examination-in-chief. He also referred to gift of Rs. 1,25,000/- by the relatives given in the marriage. This was however not supported by any credible evidence and not relied upon by the learned family court. In cross-examination he stated the name of proprietor of Jewellery shop as Nath, but could not remember the date of purchase of gold articles under Ext.1. He denied that the receipts marked as Ext.1 and 2 as forged, but no question was asked about Ext.3 and 4. He further stated that father-in-law demanded the ornaments to be kept in his custody in the month of September 2008. Video recording of his daughter''s marriage showed that the father-in-law was giving ornaments which was marked as Ext.1 with objection. According to him, ornaments shown in Ext.1 were worth Rs. 3,50,000/-. However, during cross-examination he could not tell the details of camera by which photographs were taken but named the cameraman as Deepak who belonged to Patna, whose address was not known to him. According to him, ornaments shown in Ext.1 were worth Rs. 3,50,000/-. However, during cross-examination he could not tell the details of camera by which photographs were taken but named the cameraman as Deepak who belonged to Patna, whose address was not known to him. The videographer was not examined, therefore Ext.1 was not admitted in evidence. He further denied that the petitioner was living with him since 2010. 14. P.W.3 brother of the petitioner deposed about giving of one Alto Maruti car bearing no.BR 1AJ 8284 which was standing in the name of his father. He proved bank cheques deposited in the signature of his father dated 25th March 2008 of Rs. 4 lakhs in the account of father-in-law by cheque no.277207. Deposit slip was marked as Ext.7 but he did not mention cheque number rather showed that the money was deposited in cash. Ext.7 was also not considered credible by the learned family court. Certain exhibit of the passbook of his father was marked as Ext.8. However, name of the payee father-in-law had not been mentioned in transaction dated 25th March 2008. As such, both Ext.7 and 8 were not relied upon by the learned family court. Ext.8 also did not reveal the name of the bank official. P.W.4 substantially supported the second marriage of the appellant husband. He further stated that father-in-law appellant no.2 gave the entire cloths and ornaments of his daughter-in-law to the second daughter-in-law Juhi Kumari, second wife of appellant no.1 herein. Learned family court did not give much credence to this statement as it was subject to further corroboration. P.W.5 also deposed about the evidence of second marriage of the appellant no.1 husband. 15. In support of the case of the respondent husband the father-inlaw, appellant no.2 was examined as O.P.W.1. He stated that he had no custody of stridhan of the petitioner. He admitted the birth of the granddaughter on 30th November 2009 from the wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent no.1/appellant no.1 herein. He further admitted that the divorce case filed by his son had been dismissed. He admitted having been arrested in connection with the dowry case. He stated that when his daughter-in-law left the house, his son was in the college and his wife was at the house. However, his wife could not intimate him as he was elsewhere in Garhwa. She had no mobile number. He admitted having been arrested in connection with the dowry case. He stated that when his daughter-in-law left the house, his son was in the college and his wife was at the house. However, his wife could not intimate him as he was elsewhere in Garhwa. She had no mobile number. He further stated that on 6th December 2013 petitioner received 23 items including cloths, vehicle and other articles, but he also admitted that these articles did not include any ornaments or costly cloths. Learned trial court found support from the statement of this O.P.W.1 to the case of the petitioner based on Ext.10. Reference was also made to para-3 of the Ext.5 the compromise document whereunder the husband had to give essential ornaments within 15 days and rest of the ornaments to be made available gradually. O.P.W.1 denied the giving of gift as mentioned in Ext.1 to 4 and also denied the I.D. Mark-X showing ornaments kept on the ground and on the body of the petitioner as being given by him. He admitted that Ext.X/1 revealed the photograph of his daughter-in-law and her mother. This showed that his daughter-in-law was wearing gold chain, Mangtika, nose ring which he had given to her. This indicated that he admitted that at least so much ornaments were gifted to her by him on the occasion of marriage which was consistent with the case of the petitioner. Ext.X/2 bore the photograph of the son and the petitioner and revealed bangles in her hand but he could not say whether they were of gold or glass. On being shown the pass-book he admitted that computer entry dated 25th March 2008 of debit through cheque no.277207 is mentioned and an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs has been mentioned below it. According to him this bank statement was regarding transaction from 9th January 2008 to 22nd May 2008 of Sudhir Kumar Singh, the husband. In para-43 he admitted the transaction of 25th March 2008 through cheque to the Account No.11468976169 i.e. of father-in-law O.P.W.1 and cheque column bearing cheque no.277207, debit column showing Rs. 4 lakhs. Bank statement issued by S.B.I., Kanpur Cooperative Branch had been marked Ext.-X/3 but computer generated copy was not considered necessary for authentication of its entries which was marked as Ext.-X/3. This supported the case that father of the petitioner had debited Rs. 4 lakhs. Bank statement issued by S.B.I., Kanpur Cooperative Branch had been marked Ext.-X/3 but computer generated copy was not considered necessary for authentication of its entries which was marked as Ext.-X/3. This supported the case that father of the petitioner had debited Rs. 4 lakhs to the account of the father-in-law who was the guardian of the family. Thus, Ext.9 proved the giving of Rs. 4 lakhs by the petitioner''s father in favour of the father-inlaw/appellant no.2 herein. O.P.W.1 admitted at para-47 that he did not lodge any F.I.R. against his daughter-in-law for taking away the ornaments of his wife as alleged. This omission showed that she had hardly fled away taking her ornaments or his evidence regarding separation from his son was not found reliable as he did not submit any paper of panchayati. Further he could not state where his son lives at and as to when after filing of joint written statement on 17th August 2015 he became aware about the living of his son. This reveals that he did not reveal the truth and had rather concealed the real fact of his residence at Garhwa in order to conceal the residence of his son who remained absent for more than several months in the instant case. 16. Opposite party no.2 supported the case and evidence of the respondents and denied that women''s estate of the petitioner had been kept by them. She had not stated that the petitioner took away her ornaments as alleged by the O.P.W.1. She stated that in Garhwa she and her family members including Ruchi Singh lived together near hospital but she did not remember the correct address. Santosh is her lone son and she is her lone daughter-in-law who had not been divorced. Her husband is Junior Engineer in Garhwa and they lived together in a rented house. She further stated that her husband had gifted ornaments of Rs. 1 lakh and some of her ornaments to Ruchi Singh-petitioner vide para-23 of her evidence. She denied giving of gold and silver ornaments by the father of the petitioner and also sarees. She further stated that petitioner had come from her father''s house on car which was kept for one year and thereafter she took away the car. On 6th December 2013 the Police handed over the car to the petitioner as per para-43 of her cross-examination. She further stated that petitioner had come from her father''s house on car which was kept for one year and thereafter she took away the car. On 6th December 2013 the Police handed over the car to the petitioner as per para-43 of her cross-examination. She admitted that the petitioner received articles contained in seizure list (Ext.10). She further demanded ornaments and cloths in the mediation centre. She admitted that on demand they gave Mangalsutra, Payal, a suit of Rs. 2200/- and a saree to her. Learned family court considered her evidence to be an acknowledgment that petitioner had demanded her stridhan which the respondent gave. 17. Upon the appraisal of the evidence of the parties, the learned family court proceeded to render the following findings: That the respondent no.2 had filed joint written statement on 17th August 2015. Opposite party no.2 stated that after marriage the spouses lived in Ranipur and thereafter came to Garhwa and started living near District Hospital, Garhwa. The respondents were sent to jail in connection with the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner under Sections 498A/494 of the I.P.C. Ext.10 bore the signature of the father-in-law. He had also expressed his awareness about the compromise arrived at during mediation and contents of para-3 therein. It accordingly came to a conclusion that respondent nos. 1 and 2 lived together jointly at least till filing of written statement. There was no credible evidence showing partition between them. Therefore presumption was that they continued in joint residence. On the claim of the return of women''s estate i.e. gold and silver ornaments and sarees as mentioned in Ext.1 to 4, learned family court found that P.W.2 and 3 revealed that respondent no.2 had gifted gold ornaments of Rs. 3.5 lakhs to the petitioner. O.P.W.1 had admitted in para-38 that photographs of his daughter-in-law reveals that she was wearing gold chain, Mangtika and nose ring which he had gifted to her. This showed that he had gifted at least such ornaments to her on the occasion of her marriage. Learned family court therefore found consistency in the pleadings of the petitioner as against that of the respondents on this score. This showed that he had gifted at least such ornaments to her on the occasion of her marriage. Learned family court therefore found consistency in the pleadings of the petitioner as against that of the respondents on this score. Ext.6 further revealed that she demanded her women''s estate on 9th August 2013 and Ext.10 further revealed that stridhan property of the petitioner altogether 23 items were given to her which did not include any items, as mentioned in Ext.1 to 4 except 14 pieces of sarees, suit salwar and six new sarees, as mentioned at serial nos. 4, 5 and 19 of Ext.10. As such it was of the opinion that probably 14 sarees mentioned in Ext.3 had been returned by virtue of Ext.10. The total price of 39 sarees under Ext. 4 stood at Rs. 37610/- including six new sarees. The value of new sarees came to Rs. 5786.15. The value of gold, silver ornaments and sarees came to Rs. 86825/-, vide Ext. 1, silver ornaments of Rs. 33330/-, vide Ext. 2 and sarees remaining with respondent of the amount of Rs. 31824/-, vide Ext. 4. The total value of gifted articles came to Rs. 1,51,979/-. Since the weight of the ornaments stated to be gifted by O.P.W.1 were not fixed, therefore, its value could not be fixed. O.P.W.2 had stated that her husband gifted ornaments worth Rs. 1 lakh and rest of ornaments gifted to the petitioner were belonging to her. Therefore, the value of ornaments gifted by respondent no.2 was considered to the extent of admission i.e. Rs. 1 lakh only. In addition, she had stated at para-38 that they gifted sarees of Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 75000/-. The evidence of P.W.2 in para-10 and P.W 3 in para-12, 13 and 14 revealed that father of the petitioner gave Rs. 4 lakhs by cheque no. 277207 to the respondent no. 2 on 25th March, 2008. However, there was no proof of Rs. 1 lakh given in cash. Ext. 8 supported the evidence of P. W. 2 and 3. The statement of O. P.W.1 in para 40 to 43 read with statement issued by S.B.I Co-operative Industrial Estate, Govindpur, Kanpur (Ext.9) showed that father of the petitioner had transferred Rs. 4 lakhs in the account of respondent no. 2/ appellant no.2 herein on 25th March, 2008. Ext. 8 supported the evidence of P. W. 2 and 3. The statement of O. P.W.1 in para 40 to 43 read with statement issued by S.B.I Co-operative Industrial Estate, Govindpur, Kanpur (Ext.9) showed that father of the petitioner had transferred Rs. 4 lakhs in the account of respondent no. 2/ appellant no.2 herein on 25th March, 2008. As such the total value of the articles gifted by the father of the petitioner and the father-in-law came to Rs. 151979/-, vide Ext.1 to Ext. 4 + Rs. 4 lakhs gifted through cheque + gift of gold ornaments worth Rs. 1 lakh admitted by O.P.W.1 and O.P.W. 2 + sarees of Rs. 75000/-, total of which came to Rs. 7,26,979/- only. 18. Having arrived at the aforesaid findings, learned Family Court held that respondent no. 2 was under legal obligation to return the gifted articles mentioned above or their cost i.e., Rs. 7,26,979/-. In case of dispute, option to take women''s estate would be available to the petitioner. Issue nos. 2 and 3 stood answered accordingly. Issue no. 1 relating to maintainability of the suit was also decided in favour of the petitioner. As such the suit was decreed in favour of petitioner wife/respondent herein. 19. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, gone through the impugned judgment and the relevant material evidence relied upon by learned counsel for the parties. 20. On behalf of the appellant a plea has been raised that the husband and the father-in-law are living separately. We find from the evidence on record and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Family Court that they had filed a joint written statement on 17th August 2015 and there was no credible evidence to show that they had entered into partition thereafter. Therefore, this plea was rightly rejected by the learned family court. Learned counsel for the appellant has then questioned the findings in relation to Ext.1 and 2 specifically relating to gift of gold and silver ornaments on the ground that owner of the Alankar Jewellery shop of Kanpur was not examined by the petitioner. However, this aspect also has been adequately dealt with by the learned family court, as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the appellant has then questioned the findings in relation to Ext.1 and 2 specifically relating to gift of gold and silver ornaments on the ground that owner of the Alankar Jewellery shop of Kanpur was not examined by the petitioner. However, this aspect also has been adequately dealt with by the learned family court, as mentioned above. Learned family court was of the opinion that the production of the owner of a jewellery shop, who had large number of customers to deal with every day, would not only lead to delay of the proceedings but also would be hugely inconvenient to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to dispute the findings relating to the transfer of Rs. 4 lakhs in the account of the father-in-law at the time of marriage on 25th March 2008 from the account of the father of the petitioner. This amount of Rs. 4 lakhs forms one of the major components of the total amount of Rs. 7,26,979/-. At the same time the admission of O.P.W.2 about giving of ornaments of Rs. 1 lakh as gift by the father-in-law to the bride at the time of marriage also stand established. The total amount adjudged in relation to the gold and silver ornaments and sarees both ordinary and costly as per Ext.1 to 4 comes to Rs. 1,51,979/- only out of the total amount of Rs. 7,26,979/-. As per the compromise entered in between the parties, husband had to return essential ornaments within 15 days (Ext.5 dated 31.5.2013). Petitioner had stated that these ornaments were not returned as per paragraphs-3 and 9 of the plaint. At the same time we find that the articles seized vide Ext.10 during execution of processes as against opposite party no.2 were handed over to the petitioner and did not contain any gold and silver ornaments except few sarees which have been discounted by the Family Court while arriving at the computation. This material fact also went to show that till the execution of the processes in 2013, stridhan of the petitioner had not been returned. We thus find that the learned family court has made a comprehensive analysis of the entire material on record and then come to a considered finding in favour of the petitioner. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent wife has supported the finding on all counts. We thus find that the learned family court has made a comprehensive analysis of the entire material on record and then come to a considered finding in favour of the petitioner. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent wife has supported the finding on all counts. He submits that the marriage between the spouses is still surviving and she has been ready to go back to the husband, but it is the husband who has denied all efforts for resumption of conjugal life. Respondent had filed a suit for declaration of nullity of second marriage of the appellant herein with one Juhi Kumari. Vide judgment dated 21st April 2016 passed in M.M. Case No.60/2015 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa the marriage of appellant no.1 with Juhi Kumari stands annulled. This is the background in which respondent had to pursue a case for return of women''s estate. The material evidence on record in the form of exhibits and admission of O.P.W.1 and 2 about giving of certain gifts therefore leave no room of doubt that the return of the women''s estate had not been made by the husband and father-in-law. 22. In such circumstances, the wife who has to live separately, is entitled to return of the women''s estate. Upon detailed consideration of the entire facts and circumstances and discussions made herein above, we do not find any ground made out to disturb the findings of the learned family court. The instant appeal is without merit. Accordingly it is dismissed.