Kunwar Bahadur Asthana, J. - (1.) The UP Sunni Central Board of Waqf (hereinafter called the Board) constituted under the UP Muslim Waqf Act No. XVI of 1960 (hereinafter called the Act) has come up in revision u/S. 76 of the Act from an award of the Tribunal dismissing the application of the Board filed u/S. 63(5) of the Act. Khursheed Haider, the opposite party, admittedly is in possession of the properties of the Waqf Basheerunnisa and is managing the same claiming to be a Mutawalli under the terms of the waqf -deed executed by Smt. Basheerunnisa on 6 -5 -1918. It appears that Smt. Basheerunnisa constituted herself as the first Mutawalli. After her, her brother Syed Ahmed succeeded as Mutawalli. On the death of Syed Ahmad his eldest son Muzaffar Ahsan became the Mutawalli. He was a bachelor and had no son. Muzaffar Ahsan was twice punished u/S. 60 of the Act and then removed from the office of the Mutawalli in August 1949 by the Board. In the end of August 1949 Muzaffar Ahsan migrated to Pakistan. Thereupon the Custodian took over the management of the Waqf holding the Waqf property as evacuee property vesting in him. While the Board alleges that after the removal of Muzaffar Ahsan the Board itself took up the management, appointed a Committee of Management, and took possession of the waqf properties through their Inspector Rafiq Ahmad, Khursheed Haider alleges that he had succeeded as Mutawalli according to the waqf deed, took effective part in the control and management being always in possession of the waqf property. However, before the Custodian it seems the Board as well as Khursheed Haider took up a united stand and they ultimately succeeded. The Custodian in appeal finally held that before his migration to Pakistan Muzaffar Ahsan having been divested of his office of Mutawalli, the waqf property could not have been declared as evacuee property. The Custodian eventually by his order dated 11 -9 -1957 released the property in favour of the Board. But Khursheed petition u/S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the appellant seeking dissolution of the marriage and also a decree for return of ornaments 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. The courts below have recorded 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.
(2.) Coming now to the question of the legality of the decree for return of the ornaments etc. it may be mentioned that the courts below have recorded a clear finding that the husband did deprive wife of the ornaments and other valuable articles. No dispute has been raised in regard to the value of the ornaments and the articles. An argument, however, has been raised to the effect that u/S. 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 husband and the wife. The contention of the appellant is that unless the ornaments or other articles jointly belonged to the husband and the wife the court is not competent to exercise the powers conferred on it u/S. 27 of the said Act. This argument appears to be plausible. But, in my opinion, the argument really has no force. S. 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 proper with respect to any property presented, at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife. S. 27, to my mind, does not exclude the jurisdiction or the power of the court to pass an appropriate decree 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 dealing with the property belonging exclusively to the husband or the wife. Difficulties are likely to arise in cases where there are properties which belong jointly to both of them. In such cases the court has to adjust the equities between the parties haying 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 u/S. 27 of the said Act. Therefore, I am of opinion that S. 27 does not exclude the general power of the court to pass an appropriate decree in regard to the property belonging exclusively to either the husband or the wife. S. 21 of the Act provides: 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 Act shall be regulated, as far as may be, by the CPC, 1908.
(3.) It will thus be seen that in proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act the court concerned has all the powers of the Civil Court, subject, however, to the special provisions contained in the Act. By virtue of S. 151 of the CPC the court retains its inherent power, to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. O. VII, R. 7 of the Code makes it further clear that the court has the power to grant general or other relief which it may think just under the circumstances established in a given case. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the decree of the court below, in so far as it relates to the return of the ornaments and other articles also, does not suffer from any illegality.;