Vandana Kasrekar, J.@mdashThe appellant has filed the present appeal challenging part of the judgment and decree dated 27.6.2000 passed by District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 90-A/1999 by which the Trial Court has granted a decree of permanent alimony and price of the articles in favour of the respondent. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant and the respondent entered into marriage on 2.3.1995 as per Hindu rites and religion. Out of the said wedlock, a daughter was born in the month of December, 1995. The appellant and the respondent started living separately from April, 1996. The appellant thereafter filed a suit for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
2. The respondent denied the plaint allegations. The respondent, at the stage of evidence, requested the Court that looking to the allegations made by the appellant in the plaint it is not possible for her to live with the appellant. She further stated that if the appellant wanted divorce, then a decree for divorce may be granted in his favor. However, she prayed for grant of maintenance for herself and her daughter.
3. During pendency of the trial, the respondent moved an application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance to herself and her daughter. She also prayed for return of articles or the price thereof. A copy of the said application was supplied to the appellant and the Trial Court directed the appellant to file the reply of the said application and also permitted the appellant to lead additional evidence, if necessary. The appellant filed the reply of the said application and appellant''s evidence was also recorded.
4. The Trial Court, thereafter heard the arguments of both the parties and passed the decree of divorce in favor of the appellant. The Trial Court has also directed the appellant to pay Rs. 1,35,670 in lieu of price for return of the articles and also granted permanent alimony of Rs. 3,000 per month, alternatively, directed the appellant to pay Rs. 3,00,000 lump sum towards the maintenance.
5. Being aggrieved by the part of the judgment by which the Trial Court awarded the permanent alimony and the amount under Section 27 of the Act, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
6. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Trial Court has erred in passing a decree of permanent alimony and price of the articles in favour of the respondent. He further contended that the articles which are given at the time of marriage, are given to the respondent and not to the appellant, therefore, she is not entitled to get the price for return of articles. He further submitted that the appellant is unemployed and, therefore, the Trial Court has erred in awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month to the respondent. Learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent justifies the judgment passed by the Trial Court and submits that the Trial Court has passed the judgment after due appreciation of evidence on record.
8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal of the record, it is clear that Anil Dubey (DW-2) and Vimla Dubey (DW-3) in their statement have stated that they have given the articles to the appellant as per list Ex. D/23-A. Vimla Dubey (DW-3) has further stated that at the time when the appellant was residing at Delhi, he was given the T.V., Fridge, Washing Machine as per documents Exs. D/24, D/25 and D/26 and all the articles are with the appellant. Bheem Singh (DW-4) who was present at the time of settlement of marriage and "Phaldaan", has stated that at that time, amount of Rs. 1,50,000 was paid to the appellant. The Trial Court has found that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the witnesses of the respondent and, therefore, directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,35,670 to the respondent. Thus, it appears that the judgment passed by the Trial Court is after due appreciation of the evidence on record which does not call for any interference. So far as the judgment relied by learned Counsel for the appellant is concerned, the same is not applicable in the facts of the present case as there is no dispute about the preposition of law that the property as contemplated under Section 27 of the Act includes, property given to the parties before and after marriage but in the present case the respondent, on the basis of the documentary evidence, proved that the articles have been given to her at the time of marriage and, therefore, she is entitled to return of the articles or price thereof. Thus, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court. The appeal filed by the appellant, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.
