BALKRISHNA RAMCHANDRA KADAM versus SANGEETA BALKRISHNA KADAM

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 04-09-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

BALKRISHNA RAMCHANDRA KADAM 
A 
v. 
SANGEETA BALKRISHNA KADAM 
SEPTEMBER.4, 1997 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
B 
/ 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 : 
S.27-Property belonging jointly to husband and wife presented to 
them at the time 'of marriage-Disposal of-Jurisdiction of Court-Held, C 
matrimonial court trying any proceedings under the Act has jurisdiction to 
make such provision in the decree as it deems just and proper with respect 
to said property-Since the family court has not gone into the claim of wife 
and correctness of her claim, the matter is remitted to it to decide the claim 
of .wife under s.27 only in accordance with law-The decree so made shall D 
be treated the part of decree already granted by the family court. 
Words and Phrases: 
Expression "at or about the time of marriage" occurring in s,27 of 
Hindu Marriage Act-Meaning of 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 126of1993. 
' 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.4.92 of the Bombay High Court 
in L.P.A. No. 74of1991. 
A.S. Bhasme and Manoj K. Mishra for the Appellant. 
F 
Ms. J.S. Wad for the Respondent. . 
The following Order of the Court was deliv~red : 
This appeal by special leave ~alls in question the' judgment of the G 
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, dated 30.4.1992 in Letters Patent 
Appeal No. 74 of 1991. The controversy in this appeal is limited and revolves 
around the prayer of the respondent-wife for an order under Section 27 of the 
Hindu Marriage Act (hereafter the Act) in respect of the property held by the 
wife. So far as the. other matrimonial disputes between the parties are concerned,· H 
1 
. 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A they stand settled and are not the subject matter of an issue before us in this 
appeal. 
B 
The background in which the dispute relating to the grant of relief 
under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act arose, need a notice at this stage. 
There were matrimonial proceeding between the parties. The respondent· 
wife had instituted proceeding in ~he City Civil Court at Bombay for a decree 
of judicial separation as also for grant of maintenance. She also claimed relief 
under Section 27 of the Act in respect of her jewellery and other property. 
The appellant-husband had filed a petition seeking a decree of divorce on the 
C ground of cruelty. Both those proceedings were disposed of by a common 
judgment, dated 21st April, 1987. The appellant's petition for decree of divorce 
was dismissed while the respondent's petition for judicial separation was 
granted. Maintenance was also held payable to the respondent-wife from the 
date of the decree till the children of the parties 'attain the age of majority'. 
The respondent filed first appeal and the learned Single judge of the High 
D Court partly allowed the appeal and directed the appellant-husband to pay 
maintenance from the date of presentation of the petition and not from the 
date of decree only. The appellant, on the basis of the decree of judicial 
separation obtained by the respondent, .subsequently sought dissolution· of 
marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground that there had been no 
E resumption of cohabitation between the parties after the decree of judicial 
separation. A decree of divorce was, accordingly, granted by the Matrimonial 
Court to the appellant on 27 .2.1991. The matrimonial Court, however, rejected 
the prayer of the respondent-wife for relief under Section 27 of the Act. The 
respondent preferred two appeals which came to be disposed of by the 
Division Bench by the Common judgment, dated 30.4.1992. While disposing 
F of the appeals, the Division Bench, inter-alia opined that under Section 27 
of the Act, the Court had jurisdiction to pass an order regarding the property, 
as mentioned in the Section itself and disagreeing with the learned Single 
judge and the trial court, it was held by the Division Bench that the respondent-
wife was entitled to an order under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act in 
G respect of the property claimed by her in Exhibit 'A' and made the order 
accordingly. 
We h~ve he~rd learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 
The trial Court, while dealing with the question of relief under Section 
H 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act opined : 
... 
... 
. B.R. KADAM v. S.B. KADAM 
3 
' 
"In my opinion, the Court trying matrimonial causes, has no jurisdiction A 
to deal with the property rights of the parties. Hence I have declined 
to deter

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.