The first petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition, against the fair and executable order dated 04.11.2016 passed in I.A.no.241 of 2016 in HMOP.No.22 of 2012, on the file of III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.
2. The first petitioner is the wife, respondent in HMOP.No.22 of 2012, on the file of III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. The respondent, husband filed HMOP.No.22 of 2012, for divorce. The first petitioner filed counter statement in the said HMOP. Trial commenced. The respondent filed proof affidavit and the HMOP was posted for cross examination of the respondent by the first petitioner. At that stage, the first petitioner filed I.A.No.241 of 2016 for return of jewels given to the respondent's parents. According to the first petitioner, at the time of marriage, 150 soverigns of gold jewels and Silver Articles were given as Seethana Articles and 10 Soverigns of gold jewels were given to the second petitioner, minor daughter. Except 10 soverigns of gold jewels and Silver articles other jewels are with the parents of the respondent. Therefore, the first petitioner has filed I.A.No.241 of 2016 for return of jewels.
3. The respondent filed counter affidavit and opposed the said application. According to the respondent, the first petitioner has filed present petition only to drag on the proceedings. The first petitioner has filed Interluctory Application after four years of filing counter statement in HMOP, when the HMOP was posted for cross examination. In the counter statement filed by the first petitioner and complaint given in the Domestic Violence Act and other complaint given before the All Women Police Station, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83, the first petitioner has not stated that gold jewels and Silver Articles are with the parents of the respondent.
4. The learned Judge considering the averments made in the affidavit and counter statement in the HMOP, dismissed the application holding that first petitioner has not substantiated her claim that gold jewels are with the parents of the respondent.
5. Against the said order of dismissal, present Civil Revison Petition has been filed.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the first petitioner submitted that the learned Judge has rightly held that as stated in the petition filed in Domestic Violence Act that gold jewels are with the parents of the respondent. Having held so the learned Judge errenously dismissed the application. The reason given by the learend Judge that the petition has been filed belatedly is not correct. The first petitioner has filed petition, when the respondent impleaded one fictitious person as her adulteror. The learned Judge failed to see that first petitioner has stated gold jewels are with the parents of the respondent, in the petition filed by her in the HMOP.No.3276 of 2013, for restitution of conjucal rights before the Principal Family Court, Chennai.
7. The learned counsel appearing for Caveator submitted that first petitioner gave a complaint against the respondent before the All Women Police Station, Ashok Nagar, Chennai?83. On 16.07.2012, the respondent to handover the key of the flat belonging to the respondent to the first petitioner. From that date onwards, the first petitioner is in possession of the flat along with all the articles in it. The first petitioner is enjoying of the said property. The present application is filed by the first petitioner against the respondent for return of gold jewels alleged to have been given to the parents of the respondent is not maintainable. The first petitioner filed counter statement in the HMOP filed by the respondent and has not mentioned about gold jewels and silver articles being in possession of the respondent's parents. The contention of the counsel for the respondent is that the first petitioner has not mentioned in the plaint filed under Domestic Violence Act and other complaint that gold jewels and silver articles are with the parents of the respondent. The first petitioner has not filed any document to substantiate her claim. In the circumstances the learned Judge has rightly dismissed the claim made by her.
8. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
9. The respondent has filed HMOP for divorce in the year 2012. The first petitioner filed counter statement and trial commenced and the HMOP was posted for cross examination on behalf of the petitioner. At that stage, the first petitioner filed Interluctory Application, against the respondent for return of gold jewels and silver articles belonging to her, which are according to the first petitioner in possession of the parents of the respondent.
10. The first petitioner has not stated that said jewels are with the respondent's parents. When she gave complaint before the All Women Police Station the first petitioner has not substantiated the claim with gold jewels are with the respondent. The learned Judge considered the counter statement filed by the first petitioner and took note of the fact that the first petitioner has not stated that gold jewels are with the parents of the respondent, dismissed the application. In the circumstances, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below warranting interference by this Court.
11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To The III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai..