Section 27 of Hindu Marriage Act Cannot Be Invoked in Isolation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Family Court Order for Return of Stree Dhan

“Section 27 is not an independent remedy, and any order passed under it without matrimonial proceedings is a nullity” – Allahabad High Court delivered a pivotal ruling on the limited scope of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, setting aside a Family Court order that had independently directed the return of ‘stree dhan’ to the wife. The Division Bench of Justices Arindam Sinha and Avnish Saxena clarified that Section 27 cannot be used as a standalone provision to initiate or decide a matrimonial claim, and that the Family Court had acted without jurisdiction.

The Family Court, in its 2022 judgment, had ordered the husband to pay ₹10,54,364 in lieu of jewellery allegedly retained by him. This, despite the fact that no matrimonial proceeding under Sections 9 to 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act was pending at the time. The High Court held this order to be a legal nullity.

“Section 27 provides a remedy only within matrimonial proceedings, not outside them” – Court Relies on Chhattisgarh High Court Precedent

The Court underscored the jurisdictional flaw:

“There cannot be an independent order made under Section 27. Such direction could only be made in decree passed in the proceeding for dissolution of the marriage but not otherwise.”

Quoting with approval the Division Bench judgment in Babita @ Gayatri v. ModPrasad @ Pintu [(2018) AIR Chh 40], the Allahabad High Court observed:

“Section 27... does not clothe the Court with jurisdiction to entertain an independent application without there being any further proceeding under the Act... Section 27 has not been considered to be a separate and independent matrimonial proceeding.”

The Court also referred to Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam v. Sangeeta Balkrishna Kadam [AIR 1997 SC 3562], where the Supreme Court had noted that Section 27 allows relief only within the matrimonial trial.

“Photocopies of Jewellery Bills Cannot Prove Possession of Stree Dhan” – Court Rejects Unsubstantiated Evidence

The High Court also rejected the evidentiary foundation of the Family Court’s ruling, which had relied on photocopies of jewellery bills submitted by the respondent without explanation for the absence of original documents. The Court firmly held:

“There is no indication as to why they were accepted as secondary evidence… A document can only be proved by the maker of it.”

It further emphasised that the mere omission to object does not amount to admission, and that even if the bills were accepted as proof of purchase, actual possession by the husband was never established.

“Perverse Finding Ignoring Cross-Examination Admission”: Court Slams Ignoring Crucial Testimony

The respondent had alleged that on 24 November 2014, the appellant-husband forcibly snatched her jewellery and threw her out. However, in cross-examination, she admitted the husband was in Bombay at the time, a fact that the Family Court ignored entirely. The High Court held:

“It was an oblique way of not directly dealing with the appellant’s contention that respondent had admitted in cross-examination, of him not being present when the alleged incident took place.”

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the finding of possession of stree dhan by the appellant was perverse and unsupported by evidence.

“Right to Appeal is Statutory; Review Failure No Bar” – High Court Clarifies Appeal Maintainability

The respondent had argued that since the appellant had failed in seeking review and had not challenged the execution proceedings, he was barred from filing the appeal. Rejecting this, the Court stated:

“While grounds of review stand provided in Section 114 and the procedure in Order XLVII, appeal is a statutory right conferred by Section 96 and provided for in Order XLI. The execution must fail as the judgment itself is a nullity.”

The Court also directed that execution proceedings be dropped and clarified that any amount recovered under the void judgment should be adjusted against existing maintenance dues under Section 125 CrPC.

Maintenance Already Paid Adjusted; No Additional Liability Remains

The appellant had earlier paid ₹6,00,000, and an additional ₹1,00,000 via demand draft during the appeal. The Court noted that another ₹2,10,000 had been recovered by the respondent through partial execution of the impugned judgment. All these sums were ordered to be adjusted toward the earlier maintenance order dated 11 August 2017. The Court held:

“Her claim can only be till on or before date of judgment dissolving the marriage i.e., 1st May, 2023.”

Judgment Passed Without Jurisdiction Is Set Aside

In its final determination, the Allahabad High Court ruled:

“The appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 31st March 2022 is set aside. Execution proceedings based on the impugned order shall be dropped.”

The decision serves as a clear reaffirmation of the jurisdictional limits of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, reminding Family Courts that remedies under matrimonial law cannot be granted in vacuum, without a pending matrimonial proceeding.

Date of Decision: 27 May 2025