- (1.) THE respondent fil ed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the appel lant seeking dissolution of the marriage and also a decree for return of orna ments and other articles belonging to her worth Rs. 2,700/-. The suit was contested but the trial court decreed the suit for judicial separation and also for return of the ornaments etc. The husband filed an appeal, which has been dismissed by the lower appellate court.
(2.) THE courts below have re corded concurrent findings to the effect that the husband was a drunkard and addicted to other vicious habits. There is also a concurrent finding that the appellant used to treat the respondent with cruelty and had given her a knife blow in the abdomen and had also turned her out of his house. On these findings the suit was rightly decreed for judicial separation. That part of the decree, therefore, must be affirmed. Coming now to the question of the legality of the decree for return of the ornaments etc., it may be men tioned that the courts below have re corded a clear finding that the husband did deprive the wife of the ornaments and other valuable articles. No dis pute has been raised in regard to the value of the ornaments and the arti cles. An argument, however, has been raised to the effect that under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act the court had no power to pass the decree, as the ornaments and other valuable articles did not jointly belong to both the hus band and the wife. The contention of the appellant is that unless the orna ments or other articles jointly belong ed to the husband and the wife the court is not competent to exercise the powers conferred on it under Section 27 of the said Act. This argument ap pears to be plausible. But, in my opin ion the argument really has no force. Section 27 aforesaid reads as follows:- "In any proceeding under this Act, the court may make such provisions in the decree as it deems just and pro per with respect to any property pre sented, at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife." Section 27, to my mind, does not exclude the jurisdiction or the power of the court to pass an appropriate de cree in regard to the property which may belong either solely to the husband or solely to the wife. This power in the nature of things in my opinion, is inherent in the legal proceedings which appropriately arise under the Hindu Marriage Act. In such cases generally there should be no difficulty in deal ing with the property belonging ex clusively to the husband or the wife. Difficulties are likely to arise in cases where there are properties which be long jointly to both of them. In such cases the court has to adjust the equi ties between the parties having regard to all the material circumstances, and it was to ensure the making of such equitable adjustments that specific powers had to be conferred on the court under Section 27 of the said Act. Therefore, I am of opinion that Section 27 does not exclude the general power of the court to pass an appro priate decree in regard to the property belonging exclusively to either the hus band or the wife.
(3.) SECTION 21 of the Act pro vides: "Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act and to such rules as the High Court may make in this, behalf, all proceedings under this shall be regulated, as far as may by the Code of Civil Procedure, 19 ;