Bombay High Court
Vidula Bhalchandra Limaye vs Bhalchandra Vinayak Limaye And Anr. on 16 March, 1990
Equivalent citations: I(1991)DMC166
JUDGMENT M.L. Dudhat, J.
1. First Appeals Nos. 267 of 1981, 268 of 1981, 903 of 1981 and 858 of 1987 are the matters arising out of the matrimonial dispute between the wife and the husband. All these first appeals came up before me on 9th March 1990 and Shri Angal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the wife in these matters started arguing the appeals exparte, as the husband was absent in the Court. After hearing the said matter for a while I adjourned the said first appeals and directed Shri Angal to give notice to the husband stating in it that the said matters had come up for final hearing on 9-3-1990 and are part heard and are kept on 13th March 1990, I gave the aforesaid direction to Shri Angal because Shri Angal took me through the earlier record and showed to me as to how the husband is doing his best every time to shunt on the said matters on one count or the other. When the matters were fixed on 13th March 1990 and the said date was brought to the notice of the husband by Shri Angal, learned Counsel on behalf of the wife, the husband sent a telegram to fix the said first appeals after 7th April 1990. From the record, I find that every time on the earlier occasions the matters were fixed peremptorily subject to part heard but somehow or the other the matters were adjourned at the behest of the husband on some count or the other. I, therefore, directed as aforesaid to Shri Angal, learned Counsel on behalf of the wife, to give notice about these first appeals which were kept part heard on 9th March 1990 and were to come up for final hearing on 13th March 1990. Accordingly, Shri Angal served notice on the husband on 10th March 1990. After the receipt of the said service, the Registrar, High Court, Bombay, received a telegram sent by the husband stating "Please do not proceed, I cannot attend, Advocate Limaye". Thereafter waiting for three days, the matters came up for final hearing on 15th March 1990 and Shri Angal continued with his submissions in respect of the said matrimonial matters. Even till today i.e. 16th March 1990 the husband has not attended this Court nor sent any message nor made any arrangement for working out the pending appeals. The manner in which Shri Limaye the husband in these matrimonial matters is taking these Court matters casually is most disgusting. Especially this type of behaviour cannot be expected from a person who himself is an advocate practising in the Court. From the earlier history of these matters it appears that the husband in these matters is interested in protracting these proceedings on some pretext or the other. Therefore, this Court has no other alternative than to proceed with these matters exparte.
2. All these matters arise out of the matrimonial proceedings, some filed by the husband, some filed by the wife. The husband filed Special Civil Suit No. 25 of 1980 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli, first for recovery of the moveables and ornaments from the wife. The wife filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 19 of 1980 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli, on the ground of cruelty and adultery by the husband and the wife also claimed maintenance amount of Rs. 500/- each for herself and for her four children. Both these matters, by the order of the High Court, were directed to be heard by the District Judge, Sangli, along with one application filed by the husband under the Guardian and Wards Act being Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 36 of 1980. The learned District Judge, Sangli, by his decision dated 22nd December 1980 decreed the claim of the wife and passed a decree of dissolution of marriage and also awarded amount of Rs. 100/- per month each from 1st April 1980 in favour of the Applicant wife and her three daughters. The learned District Judge dismissed the counter claim of the husband regarding the allegation of adultery against the wife.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and decree dated 22nd December 1980 of the learned District Judge. Sangli, the wife preferred appeal being First Appeal No. 268. of 1981 for enhancement of the maintenance from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 500/- per month to each of the children and the wife. When the said appeal against the order of maintenance passed by the District Judge was pending before this High Court, it appears that the husband filed application being Miscellaneous Application No, 58 of 1984 before the learned District Judge for cancellation of the order of maintenance in favour of the wife and the eldest daughter Urmila, on the ground that they are now serving and also on the ground that the financially he is not in a position to pay the said maintenance. When the aforesaid fact was brought to the notice of this High Court on 22nd September 1986 Justice Sharad Manohar directed the trial Court to record the findings on the quantum of maintenance in the said miscellaneous application. In pursuance of the said directions given by this High Court the learned District Judge, Sangli gave his findings on the issues remanded to him, by his Judgment and order dated 20th April 1987. By the said Judgment and order the learned District Judge cancelled the order of maintenance of Rs. 100/- each given by him earlier in favour of Vidula the wife and Urmila the eldest daugater. Against the said Judgment and decree given by the learned District Judge on 20th April 1987 cancelling the maintenance of the wife and the eldest daughter, both the wife and the eldest daughter preferred First Appeal No. 858 of 1987 before this High Court. In the said first appeal it is contended on behalf of the wife and the eldest daughter that the learned District Judge's findings and the Order cancelling maintenance was illegal and that in fact the appellants were entitled to get maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month each. I am disposing of all the four appeals preferred before me by this common Judgment.
4. First I will deal with First Appeal No. 268 of 1981 and First Appeal No. 858 of 1987. First Appeal No. 268 of 1981 is preferred by the wife, while First Appeal No, 858 of 1987 is preferred by the wife and the eldest daughter Urmila. Under the circumstances mentioned as aforesaid,, Shri Angal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, fairly conceded that he is not going to press the claim of the wife and the eldest daughter for maintenance from the date on which they started serving, though under the law he has a right to do so. According to him the wife and the eldest daughter Urmila had no alternative than to serve somewhere out of helplessness as the respondent husband, whose duty it was to maintain the wife and the children, refused to do so and since it was the primary duty of the husband to maintain the wife and the children, merely because the wife and the eldest daughter started serving, the respondent husband's liability to pay maintenance is not reduced much less extinguished. Without prejudice to the aforesaid contention, Shri Angal pressed only the claim of the wife arid the eldest daughter, who are serving, from the date of filing of the petition till the date they started serving. According to him, the petition for maintenance was filed on 25th March 1980 and the wife started serving in Kirloskar Filters on 20th October 1982. According to him, the appellant wife is entitled to get maintenance from the respondent-husband for the period of about 2-1/2 years at the enhanced rate Which the wife is claiming in the appeal before this Court. According to him, even after remand, the husband has led no evidence excepting his bare, words that the wife was getting any remuneration in Dnyan Prabodhini during the pendency of the main petition, because it was the specific contention of the appellant wife that she was going to Dnyan Prabodhini and doing some work but she was not getting any remuneration, Similarly in case of Urmila the second appellant in First Appeal No. 858 of 1987, she is entitled to get the maintenance at the enhanced rate which she has claimed in the first appeal from the date of filing of the petition, i.e., from 25th March 1980 till 25th July 1983 when she started serving and getting the salary, i.e., she is entitled to the maintenance for about three years. It was also contended on behalf of the appellants that the other two daughters and the son are also entitled to get the maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month each.
5. After the remand, after going through the evidence, the learned District Judge, Sangli, cancelled the maintenance given to the wife and the eldest daughter on the ground that they were Serving, but in para 11 of the Judgment the learned District Judge himself came to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence that the wife was serving with Kirloskar Filters from 20th October 1982 and that there is no evidence as to whether she was getting any salary earlier from the educational institution Dnyan Prabodhini where she was working earlier. The learned District Judge has lost sight of the fact that in view of the said conclusions. It is clear that the wife was entitled to get the maintenance from the date of filing of her petition, i.e., from 25th March 1980 till the date she joined service in Kirloskar Filters, i.e., 20-10-1982. In the event the appellants prove that they are entitled to get the enhanced maintenance as claimed by them, the wife will be entitled to get the enhanced maintenance. Similarly, as per para 16 of the Judgment of the learned District Judge Sangli, after remand, according to the learned Judge the eldest daughter Urmila joined service at Rathi Estates Private Ltd. since March 1983. Even taking this as a correct position, the eldest daughter Urmila will be entitled to get the enhanced maintenance as claimed by her in the event she proves that the appellants are entitled for enhanced maintenance.
6. Therefore, the only limited question before me in both these first appeals is as to whether the appellants are entitled to get enhanced maintenance than whatever was awarded by the learned District Judge, Sangli, by his order dated 22nd December 1980. It was argued on behalf of the present appellants that the learned District Judge awarded Rs. 100/- per month to each dependent by proceeding on the footing as if the appellants dependents are entitled to receive from the respondent-husband only bare maintenance irrespective of their status in the society. As per para 55 to 57 of the Judgment of the learned District Judge, the learned Judge has not at all taken into consideration the social and financial status of the respondent-husband and the dependent appellants. While granting the maintenance, it was the duty of the lower Court to see as to what was the social and financial status of the husband and his wife and children. As per the Hindu Law while granting the maintenance the criteria is not the bare maintenance of the wife and the child but the criteria is that they must be in a position to maintain themselves as per the status economic as well as social that of the husband or the father, as the case may be. This is an admitted position of law which does not require, further discussion on this point. On this point of the status of the husband, social and economic, there is the evidence on record which has not been taken into consideration by the learned District Judge while coming to the conclusion about the quantum of maintenance awarded by him. In para 11 of the husband's deposition he had stated that--
"My present accommodation at Sangli is in rent premises since 1972. There are about 6 rooms in all. All modern amenities for a decent living are available in my house. There was a female cook for many years. I was purchasing many saries for my wife Vidula. I purchased many ornaments for her at Pune, Sangli and Kolhapur, They were being purchased as a sort of saving"
Further in para 18 of his deposition the husband has stated--
"My foundry business was a flourishing one till recently, and I could be taken as one belonging to higher middle class family. However, since my children left me, I have no mind in the foundry . business........."
In para 21 of his deposition he has also pointed out as to how he has taken loan of about Rs. 7-1/2 lakhs for running his foundry arid in the year 1980 he had wiped out all his loan except loan of Rs. 2,25,000/-. The said loan was also wiped out by him by February 1982, which is also clear from his deposition before the learned District Judge after the remand. From this he has also admitted that his income was about Rs. 2 lakhs a year out of the foundry, though he has denied the suggestion that his turn over was Rs.7 lakhs a year. In any case from his admissions it is clear that his status and his family status was that of higher middle class in the society. Even from the point of view of his financial position, now it is in the evidence that he had obtained a loan of about Rs. 7-1/2 lakhs which he has paid out by the year 1980 except the loan of Rs. 2,25,000/- which he has also paid out by February 1982. From the aforesaid evidence as deposed by the husband, one can see that the jncome of the respondent-husband, who is also the father of four children, was substantial. Thereafter he has also stated in his evidence that he has disposed of his foundry in. the year 1983. The foundry in which he had invested earlier more than Rs. 7 lakhs is disposed of in the year 1983 when the prices shot up. The said foundry was disposed of by him when he had wiped out all the loan taken for the foundry. The only irresistible conclusion which can be drawn is that he received substantial amount from the sales of the said foundry and the machinery. From the evidence as led by the respondent-husband, one can safely conclude that the status of the respondent-husband and his family was that of higher middle class and the family members were accustomed to all the luxuries of the higher middle class good life and, therefore, while awarding the maintenance this important aspect ought to have been taken into consideration by the trial Court but unfortunately the said aspect was not even touched. At this stage about the financial capacity certain observations were made by the learned District Judge, Sangli, after remand that the respondent husband has a very meagre Income and has to maintain himself and his mother. According to me, here also both the District Judges have not taken into consideration the vital evidence on record. The husband in his deposition has stated that he raised the loan much prior to 1980 for establishing the foundry and he was earring good income Out of it, so much so that within few years he could repay the loan of about Rs. 7 lakhs and maintain the high standard of the family. At the time when he sold the said foundry in the year 1983 it was a running profit making foundry and was a foundry without any encumbrances. If that is so, one can derive sale conclusion that by the sale of the said foundry along with the machinery in the year 1983 the respondent-husband must have earned lot of amount much more than Rs. 7 lakhs, appreciating the fact that, that was the amount which was invested ten years back. Apart from that it is surprising that the respondent-husband, though carried out all his business transactions and sold the foundry, refused to give the amount which he had received from the said transaction. If a person who is in the know of the things refuses to divulge the amount of the sale proceeds, it only means that he does not want to divulge the real amount received as the said information would adversely affect his interest. According to me, this is a fit case in which the Court can safely draw adverse inference against the respondent-husband and from the aforesaid fact it is clear that the financial condition of the respondent-husband must be sound, but he is deliberately not giving the correct position with a view that proper maintenance should not be required to be given to the wife and the children.
7. The learned District Judge, Sangli, while giving decision in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 19 of 1980 as well as the learned District Judge, Sangli, while giving decision in Miscellaneous Application No. 58 of 1984 after remand, have completely ignored the above important aspects and came to the conclusion that the wife and the children are entitled only to bare subsistance maintenance. According to me, taking all the aforesaid aspects into consideration and also taking into consideration the financial status and the capacity of the respondent-husband to pay, one can safely come to the conclusion that the respondent-husband should pay an amount of Rs. 400/-per month each as maintenance for the wife and the three daughter. The learned District Judge, Sangli, by his Judgment and decree dated 20th April 1987 has cancelled the amount of maintenance in favour of the wife and the eldest daughter Urmila which was awarded by the learned District Judge, Sangli by his Judgment and decree dated 20th December 1980 In Hindu Marriage Petition No. 19 of 1980, from July 1983. Both appellants Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the wife and the eldest daughter Urmila will be entitled to get maintenance calculated at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month each from 20th March 1980 till July 1983. Thereafter in view of the fact that they are serving, they will not be entitled to receive any maintenance unless the circumstances change. The other two daughters Hemala and Shubhada are entitled to get amount of Rs. 400/- per month each as maintenance from the date of the filing of the petition i.e. 25-3-1980 regularly till the date of their attaining majority. As regards the maintenance to the son Charuhas, I am not making any order as the same is already decided in First Appeal No. 148 of 1981.
8. At this juncture, I may further observe that under the Hindu Marriage Act the daughters are entitled to get marriage expenses from their father and the amounts awarded by this judgment and order shall in no case affect their right of the recovery of the said amount, if they are entitled to receive the same.
9. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, I allow First Appeal no. 268 of 1981 and First Appeal No. 858 of 1987 with costs and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Sangli, in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 19 of 1980 dated 22nd December 1980, as also the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Sangli, dated 20th April 1987 in Miscellaneous Application No. 58 of 1984.
10. First Appeal No. 267 of 1981 and First Appeal No. 903 of 1981 are filed by the wife Vidula and the husband respectively, against the judgment and decree dated 22nd December 1980 passed by the learned District Judge, Sangli, in Special Civil Suit No. 25 of ,1980.
11. The husband respondent in First Appeal No. 267 of 1981 filed Special Civil Suit No. 25 of 1980 against the appellant-wife for recovery of certain moveables and ornaments. It was Contended on behalf of the plaintiff-husband in the said suit that the defendant wife took away all the articles and ornaments, more particularly shown in para 11 of the plaint. According to him the value of the said property was about Rs. 74,881/-, He further contended that he is the owner of all the aforesaid properties and the defendant-wife took away the said property without his consent and without any authority and, therefore, he is entitled to receive the same. He further contended" that after he came to know that the defendant-wife took away the said articles, he immediately filed a complaint and recovered the property, more particularly mentioned in para 11(A) of the plaint. Somehow or the other he could not recover the property mentioned in para 11(B) of the plaint. He contended that all the properties mentioned in para . 11(A) and (B) were taken by the defendant-wife and, therefore, he is entitled to recover the same. The learned District Judge, Sangli after hearing both the sides, by his judgment and order dated 22nd December 1980 partly allowed the Suit filed by the plaintiff-husband and ordered that the ornaments mentioned in the list given in para 11(A) of the plaint from Items Nos. 1 to 5, 7 and 8, 10 and 11 should be given in the custody of the plaintiff-husband. The learned Judge further ordered that the plaintiff-husband has to keep the said ornaments in his custody for the benefit of the daughters at the time of their marriage and the plaintiff-husband was directed to give undertaking to the Court to the effect that after taking the said ornaments from the Court he will keep the said ornaments with him for the benefit of the daughters. As regards item at serial No. 6 mentioned in para 11(A) of the plaint, the learned District Judge held that the plaintiff is entitled for the same. Rest of the items in the list in para 11(A) of the plaint at serial Nos. 9, 12, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28 and 30 were given to the wife-defendant. As regards items mentioned in para 11(B) of the plaint, the learned District Judge, Sangli, held that the plaintiff-husband had led no evidence whatsoever to prove his claim and, therefore, dismissed his suit for the recovery of the said articles. Against the said decision of the learned District Judge, Sangli, the wife preferred appeal being First Appeal No. 267 of 1981. The plaintiff-husband also preferred appeal being First Appeal No. 903 of 1981 against the said order dismissing his claim in respect of items mentioned in para 11(B) of the plaint and in respect of certain items returned to the wife mentioned in the list in para 11(A).
12. Shri Angal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-wife has strenuously contended that the learned District Judge, Sangli, was wrong in giving the ornaments to the plaintiff-husband. According to him all the ornaments and the articles mentioned in the plaint filed by the plaintiff-husband is the property owned by the defendant-wife as the said property is her stridhan. In support of his contention, Shri Angal first pointed out that the learned Judge relied upon the bills produced by the plaintiff-husband referred to by him in para 11 of his deposition but there is no evidence on record whatsoever to connect the items mentioned in the said bills to the items mentioned in para 11 of the plaint. It was contended on behalf of wife that merely because the plaintiff-husband produced certain bills, he was not entitled to claim the articles mentioned in the list in para 11(A) of the plaint. I have gone through the relevant portion of the evidence and I find that the plaintiff-husband had made no effort to establish the connection between the items mentioned in the bills produced by him and those mentioned in para 11 of the plaint. In view of this position according to me the learned District Judge, Sangli was wrong in relying on the bills and there by coming to the conclusion about the authenticity of the claim made by the plaintiff-husband in his plaint. The plaintiff-husband in para 36 of his deposition has stated--
"The property, which is brought to this Court, belongs to my ownership. Neither my wife nor any of my relatives have any right or title over this property. I claim that this property should be returned to me"
Excepting the aforesaid evidence, there is nothing in the evidence to establish the identity of the articles shown in para 11(A) of the plaint. As against this in para 21 of her deposition the defendant-wife has given the description of the ornaments given to her on different occasions. Para 21 of the deposition of the defendant-wife is as under :--
"My mother had given me marriage gift of four golden bangles, Mangalsutra and a pair of ear-rings, ring together weighing 8 to 8-1/2 tolas. The opponent had not given me any ornaments in marriage, After marriage, from time to time, opponent gave me golden wakis, Patalis, Todas and Tanmani of pearls. His ornaments weighed about 17 tolas. Tanmani was given for first Diwali San Padva. Wakis were given after Charu's birth. Patlis were prepared while we are at Kolhapur."
In the deposition the defendant-wife has stated as to how items Nos. 1,2, 3,10 and 11, which are ornaments, have come to her and how they are gifted to her on different occasions. Whatever she has stated is not contradicted by the plaintiff-husband in his deposition nor is there cross-examination on this point.
13. Shri Angal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-wife, has pointed out that if the husband presents the articles to the wife on different occasions, then the said property becomes stridhan under the Mitakshara Law. He has relied on the commentary on the Hindu Law by Shri S.V. Gupte, Vol. 1, Article 111 on stridhana, which is as under :--
"Art. 111--(A) According to all schools (Mitakshara and Dayabhaga) .the following property is stridhana :--
(1) Property given (or bequeathed) by relations at any time (that is, during maidenhood, coverture, or widowhood). (2) Property purchased with stridhana.
(3) Money given for maintenance at any time (that is, whether during maidenhood, Coverture, or widowhood). (4) Property acquired by adverse possession at any time (that is, whether during maidenhood, coverture, or widowhood). (5) Property acquired by compromise at any time (that is, whether during maidenhood, coverture, or widowhood). (B) According to the Mitakshara schools (except, Mithila) the following property is also stridhana :-- (1) Property given (or bequeathed) by strangers at any time (that is, whether during maidenhood, coverture, or widowhood). (2) Property acquired by mechanical arts or otherwise by her own exertions at any time (that is, whether during maidenhood,, coverture, or widowhood). (C) According to the Bombay School (Mitakshara and Mayukha) the following property is also stridhana :--
Property inherited at any time (i) from a female or (ii) from a male provided in this case the female so inheriting was born in the family of the deceased owner."
According to the said commentary the property gifted by the relations including the husband to the wife forms the stridhana of the said woman. From this one will have to come to the conclusion that the defendant-wife became the owner of the said property referred to in para 21 of the deposition of the wife, which went unchallenged as mentioned above, as the said property forms her stridhana. Further in para 30 of her deposition the wife referred to other items in para 11(A) of the plaint and stated as to how the said items are owned by her and belongs to her. Again whatever she has stated is not challenged by the plaintiff-husband in the cross-examination. Further, to some extent the testimony of the wife is also corroborated by the testimony of her mother before the Court. Taking the aforesaid factual and legal aspects into consideration, I hold that the property shown in para 11(A) of the plaint filed by the plaintiff-husband is the property belonging to the defendant-wife and the plaintiff-husband has failed to establish the ownership qua the said property. In view of the aforesaid conclusion of mine, I allow First Appeal No. 267 of 1981 with costs and set aside the judgment and decree dated 22nd December 1980 passed by the learned District Judge, Sangli, in Special Civil Suit No. 25 of 1980 in favour of the plaintiff-husband in respect of the ornaments mentioned in the list in para 11(A)and further order that the defendant-wife is entitled to get back the same from the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli.
14. The husband-original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 25 of 1980 has filed First Appeal No. 903 of 1981 against the judgment and decree dated 22-12-1980 passed by the learned District Judge, Sangli, refusing to grant possession of some of the articles mentioned in the list given in para 11(A) of the plaint and all the articles in para 11(B) of the plaint. The learned Judge refused to grant possession in respect of items at serial Nos. 14, 15, 23 and 29 mentioned in para 11(A) of the plaint, on the ground that these are the articles of daily use and according to the learned Judge no useful purpose would be served by calling upon the wife and the children to return the said articles and, therefore, the learned Judge directed that the said property should be retained by the wife. According to me, the trial Court was right in taking the aforesaid view. Apart from the aforesaid position, as I have already pointed out from the evidence of the wife and her mother that she rightfully claimed possession of the said articles and the plaintiff-husband has failed to establish link with these articles, I confirm the findings of the trial Court on this point.
15. The husband-appellant in First Appeal No. 903 of 1981 has also challenged the decision of the trial Court refusing to grant relief in respect of articles mentioned in para 11.(B) of the plaint filed by the husband. The learned trial Judge refused to grant relief in favour of the husband in the said suit on the ground that the plaintiff has not adduced any evidence and has not given proper description to establish the identity of the said property and the said property claimed by him was never traced and, therefore, according to the learned trial Judge, the plaintiff-husband has miserably failed to establish his case qua the items mentioned in para 11 (B) of the, plaint filed by the plaintiff. I confirm the view of the trial Court on this point. According to me, the plaintiff-husband has not led evidence to show that the property shown by him in para 11(B) of the plaint is in fact in existence and, therefore, he is not entitled to get any relief whatsoever.
16. Hence order -
First Appeal No. 268 of 1981 is allowed with costs and the Judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Sangli in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 19 of 1980 dated 22nd December 1980 is set aside.
First Appeal No. 858 of 1987 is allowed with costs and the Judgment and decree dated 20th April 1987 passed by the learned District Judge, Sangli, in Miscellaneous Application No. 58 of 1984 is set aside. Both appellants Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the wife Vidula and the eldest daughter Urmila" will be entitled to get maintenance calculated at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month each from 20th March 1980 till July 1983. Thereafter in view of the fact that they are serving, they will not be entitled to receive any maintenance unless the circumstances change. The other two daughters Hemala and Shubhada are entitled to get amount of Rs. 400/- per month each as maintenance from the date of the filing of the petition i.e. 25-3-1980 regularly till the date of their attaining majority. As regards the maintenance to the son Charuhas, I am not making any order as the same is already decided in First Appeal No. 148 of 1981.
First Appeal No. 267 of 1981 is allowed with costs and the judgment and decree dated 22nd December 1980 passed by the learned District Judge, Sangli, in Special Civil Suit No. 25 of 1980 in favour of the plaintiff-husband in respect of the ornaments mentioned in the list in para 11(A) is set aside and it is further ordered that the defendant-wife is entitled to get back the said ornaments from the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli.
First Appeal No. 903 of 1981 is dismissed with costs and the Judgment and decree dated 22-12-1980 passed by the learned District judge, Sangli, in Special Civil Suit No. 25 of 1980 is confirmed.