NAVITA SINGH J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant ­ wife against the judgment and decree dated 17.7.2002 passed by the then Additional District Judge, Kaithal. The marriage between the parties was dissolved and respondent was directed to make payment of Rs.55,000/ - towards price of dowry articles. The wife has come up in appeal only with regard to the amount awarded as price of dowry articles, praying for enhancement of the same. So far as the decree relates to divorce, the same has not been challenged.
(2.) THE brief facts are that marriage between the parties was solemnised on 2.4.2000 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Village Deoban, Tehsil and District Kaithal. The father of the appellant spent huge amount on the marriage and gave sufficient dowry before and at the time of marriage. The respondent and his family were however greedy and were not satisfied with the dowry and harassed the appellant on that account and demanded more dowry. She lived only for five days in the matrimonial home initially and second time, she lived for four days. There was persistent demand of dowry which included Rs.2 lacs in cash besides gold ornaments and other things. She was physically and mentally tortured. Since 30.6.2001, the appellant lived separately and was in the house of her parents. Also all the articles of istridhan were retained by the respondent and his family members. The husband contested the petition vehemently and pleaded that all the allegations in the petition were false and he always was ready and willing to live with the appellant. He and his family rather tried their best to patch up the matter and live peacefully but the appellant was playing in the hands of her father, who did not want his daughter to settle down in the matrimonial home.
(3.) HOWEVER , before issues could be framed, the respondent stopped appearing and was proceeded against ex parte. The decree was thus passed in his absence. During pendency of the petition, the appellant filed an application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') claiming an amount of Rs.2,87,000/ - towards price of dowry articles alleging that her father had spent about Rs.3 lacs on the marriage and all the dowry articles were with other party. She had also lodged a complaint under Section 406, 498 -A read with Section 120 -B Indian Penal Code. No reply to the application was filed as by that time the respondent had already been proceeded against ex parte. The trial Court ordered that the application would be decided along with the main case and deciding the said application, an amount of Rs.55,000/ - was awarded. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that despite evidence that an amount of Rs.3 lacs was spent on the marriage and most of the articles were not perishable, the trial Court granted a meager amount. He referred to para 11 of the impugned judgment where the trial Court held that some of the articles must be out of use by that time like clothes etc., and some might have been damaged or broken. After deducting depreciation etc., and in view of the evidence on record, the price of the articles was assessed at Rs.55,000/ - which the respondent was directed to pay to the appellant, as the articles could not be restored to the appellant in the original form. It was argued that the trial Court acted on mere presumption and conjecture and decided the price without any basis. There was no reason to presume that some of the articles were damaged and broken and depreciation could have been to such extent that only an amount of Rs.55,000/ - was found reasonable. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that no marriage could have been performed in Rs.55,000/ - in the year 2000 and also that there are bills and receipts on record showing that articles worth much more than Rs.55,000/ - were purchased and given in dowry. There is evidence of entrustment of the articles to the other party and also most of the articles were such which were not perishable. It is interesting to note that on the one hand, learned counsel for the appellant says that the trial Court acted on any presumption of damage and disuse of articles while on the other, he is arguing and requesting the Court to accept the presumption that no marriage could have been performed in Rs.55,000/ -. Also, he ignored the other part of the para 11 of the judgment where the trial Court rightly observed that there was no conclusive proof that all the articles were entrusted to the spouses or jointly to them. At most places, learned counsel for the appellant is arguing according to his convenience selecting the parts and documents suitable to him and ignoring the others.;