H.D. PATEL, J.

By this revision the applicant Nandini, who is the wife of the non-applicant Sanjiv Birsen Ahuja, prayed for quashing the order passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, on 19th January, 1988 in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 176 of 1986 rejecting the application Exh. 64.

2. The non-applicant filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a decree of divorce against the applicant-his wife, on the allegations that she had adulterous relations with one Anil Jaydayal Taneja; who is the husband of the sister of the applicant. That petition is being resisted by the applicant by filling a detailed written statement. The applicant in para 13 of the written statement contended that in the marriage the non-applicant has been able to gain handsome amounts and also received attractive and costly presents, the list of which would be filed in due course. During the pendency of the petition an application (Exh. 64) was moved by the applicant stating therein that the non-applicant has contravened Rule 4(1)(h) [sic (g)]of the Hindu Marriage & Divorce, Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) framed by the Bombay High Court under sections 14 and 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act by not disclosing in the petition the particulars relating to property mentioned in section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act and, therefore, the petition filed by the non-applicant should be dismissed.

3. The non-applicant filed his reply inter alia contending that the provisions of Rule 4(i)(h) of the Rules framed by the High Court is only directory and not mandatory. His further contention was that section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for disposal of the property jointly owned by the applicant, and the non-applicant. Since there is no property as contemplated by section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the same was not mentioned in the petition. According to the non-applicant, the application was frivolous and the petition was maintainable.

4. After hearing the parties the learned Court below passed the order impugned rejecting the application outright. According to the learned Court below section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act had no application in the present case because that section did not apply to exclusive properties of any spouse received by them at the time of marriage. It also held that Rule 4(1)(h) of the rules is not mandatory as claimed on behalf of the applicant, but it is directory as contended on behalf of the non-applicant. These findings are now being assailed in this revision.

5. Mrs. Sirpurkar, advocate, appearing on behalf of the applicant very streneously criticised the order impugned by contending that the property envisaged by section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act must not only be the property which jointly belonged to the parties, but also includes individual properties. In this context reliance was placed on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in (Kanta Prasad v. Smt. Om Wati)1, A.I.R. 1972 Allahabad 150 and the latter judgment of the Delhi High Court in (Anju Bhargava v. Rajesh Bhargava)2, (1986)II D.M.C. 467. A further submission was also made that Rule 4(i)(h) of the rules must be held to be mandatory and non-compliance thereof must be held to be fatal to the maintainability of the Hindu Marriage Petition.

6. Repelling the above contention on behalf of the non-applicant, it was submitted by Shri Oka, advocate that in no circumstance the petition is liable to be thrown out for alleged non-compliance of Rule 4(1)(h) of the rules since no such consequence is provided. Therefore, he further supported the order impugned by relying upon the cases discussed therein.

7. The Supreme Court in (Pratibha Rani v. Surajkumar and another)3, A.I.R. 1985 Supreme Court 628 has pointed out that pure and traditional presents given to the bride in a Hindu wedding may be divided into three categories, viz.---

(a) property intended for exclusive use of the bride, e.g. her personal jewellery, wearing apparel. etc.

(b) articles of dowry which may be for common use and enjoyment in the matrimonial home, and

(c) articles given as presents to the husband or the parent-in-law and other members of his family.

In that case the Supreme Court was concerned with the question whether there can be a criminal prosecution of a husband, who did not return the articles, which were Stridhan of the wife under section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. While answering the question in the affirmative it replied the contention that the concept of Stridhan has been abolished because of section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act and section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. While dealing with section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act the Supreme Court said that section 27 provides an alternate remedy to the wife to bring a suit for Stridhan property, which the husband has failed to return. At the same time the scope of section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act was not decided probably because no arguments were advanced.

8. At this stage it becomes necessary to take notice of section 27 which reads as under :

27. 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.

Whereas section 27 deals with the property belonging to the spouses, section 26 deals with their children and section 26 with permanent alimony and maintenance that may be awarded in favour of a party. The power of the Court to pass an order under these sections is discretionary. Obviously the object in enacting these sections is to ensure severance in possibly all respects between those spouses, who, as the Court thinks, cannot live together. The intention behind framing these sections is to make every possible attempt to settle all possible disputes between such spouses and that too once for all so that there should not be again an opportunity to enter into fresh litigation with each other. Section 27 does no envisage deciding any question as to the title of the property involved therein. Keeping in view the above legislative intent and the plain language used in section 27 the principles that emerge therefrom are as follows :---

(i) The power of the matrimonial Court is discretionary and it is not incumbent on the Court to make provision in the decree with regard to disposal of the property.

(ii) It must be a matrimonial proceeding pending under the Act and an application for disposal of the property must be made before the decision of the proceeding.

(iii) The provision to be made must be just and proper as the Court deems having regard to the adjustment of equities between the parties and surrounding circumstances.

(iv) The property contemplated must be such as was presented at a time or stage which is in clause proximity of the marriage, whether presented before or after the marriage.

(v) The property so presented may either be to the wife, husband or both and at the time the Court is required to exercise discretion the property may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife.

The word belong as used in the section was interpreted exhaustively in (Surinder Kaur v. Madan Gopal Singh)4, A.I.R. 1980 Punjab and Haryana 334. Para 8 of the judgment reads as follows :

Now it is well understood that the word belong necessarily does not reflect title to the property in the sense of ownership. It only denotes connection with property and is a term connecting person with his possessions. It appears to me that the property thus presented to the spouses within the afore-explained time limit, may fall jointly to belong to both the husband and the wife, irrespective of the tile in those properties to be vesting in one or the other, or both. To give an earthly example, a saree presented by the husband, or anyone else to the wife, may or may not involve transfer of title to the saree to the wife, but will belong to her exclusively, and not jointly to both the husband and the wife, as the very nature of the garment so suggests. Similarly, a suit presented to the husband in the same fashion would be exclusively belonging to the husband. Properties and articles presented from any source and to any one of them which by the very nature of the present, or by intention of the donor, or by tacit agreement of spouses, has come to be jointly in use by both the husband and the wife, can well be said to belong jointly to both of them. An earthly example of such incident can be that of a set of dining table and chairs for joint user in the matrimonial home irrespective of the fact as to which spouse received it as a present within that allocated time. The said dining table and chairs would obviously be joint belonging to both the husband and the wife and capable of being subjected to orders under section 27 of the Act.

I fully subscribe to this view. Section 27 provides for sharing of that property, which the spouses received individually or collectively as presents at or about the time of marriage and which has come to be as a way of life in their joint use in their day-to-day living and thus may belong jointly to them. Such joint belongings require the attention of Court for proper apportionment.

9. In the Allahabad case of Kanta Prasad v. Smt. Om, A.I.R. 1972 Allahabad 150 a power of the Court was spelt out that the Court can even pass a decree relating to property belonging exclusively either to the husband or wife as a power inherent to the proceedings under the Act. That decision does not decide the real controversy actually at issue. As a matter of fact, the said decision equates the words "belong jointly" with "jointly owning". With respect to the learned judge, such an interpretation is not in tune with the section.

10. That brings me to consider the latter decision of the Delhi High Court in Anju Bhargavas case (cited supra). In that case the District Judge dismissed the application of the wife filed under section 27 on the ground that it does not refer to any joint property presented to the parties at the time of the marriage. In para 14 the learned Judge interpreted the words may belong jointly which is extracted below :

To my mind, the words which will determine the amplitude of the power contained in section 27 of the Act are may belong jointly. The words may belong jointly have to be taken together as a group. Once they are taken together as a group the words necessarily include properties which may belong jointly, or even may not belong jointly. This is because the word may in English language, implies may not also. It is only when the words may belong jointly are so construed, can the intention of the Legislature to effect restitution be fully implemented at the time of passing of the decree.

Such a interpretation would, according to me, embrace persons not contemplated by the section itself like the parents-in-law and other members of the family, which is a part of third category mentioned in the Supreme Court case of Pratibha Rani (cited supra). With respect to the learned Judge such a wide interpretation is not warranted. This would only enlarge the scope of section 27 and expeditious disposal of matrimonial cases would be prevented. The matrimonial Court will have to act as Civil Court for purposes of property disputed not falling within the ambit and scope of section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

11. The Conclusion of the learned trial Judge that the Court exercising the jurisdiction under section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act is powerless to deal with the properties exclusively presented to one or the other spouse is based on the following decisions.

(i) (Smt. Shukla v. Brij Bhusan Makkar)5, A.I.R. 1982 Delhi 223.

(ii) (Sardar Surinder Singh v. Manjeet Kaur)6, A.I.R. 1983 Jammu & Kashmir 86.

(iii) (Banoo Jal Daruwalla v. Jal C. Daruwalla)7, A.I.R. 1964 Bombay 124.

In the Bombay case section 42 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 came under consideration, which reads as under :

42. Disposal of joint property.---In any suit under this Act the Court may make such provisions in the final decree as it may deem just and proper with respect to property presented at or about the time of marriage which may belong jointly to both the husband and wife.

The distinction between the provisions of section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act and section 42 extracted above lies not only in the content of marriage note, but also in respect of property. Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act empowers the Court to make provision with respect to any property which may belong to both the husband and wife, whereas section 42 of the Parsis Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 empowers the Court to make provision with respect to property which may belong jointly to husband and wife. There is thus an indication that the subject matter of an order under section 42 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act would only be the joint property and nothing more. It is not so with respect to property under section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

12. In so far as the other two decisions are concerned i.e. Smt. Shuklas and Sardar Surinders case (cited supra), the view taken was extremely conservative. It restricted the application of section 27 only to properties received jointly by the husband and wife. No doubt such properties would attract section 27, but, as discussed above, that section also takes within its sweep that property which the spouses may have received individually or collectively as presents on or about the time of marriage and which has come to be a way of life in their joint use in their day to day living and thus may belong jointly to them.

13. The decisions on the above point will not decide the fate of the application (Ex. 64). It only decides the type of property, which is covered by section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It still remains to be seen whether there is non-compliance of Rule 4(1)(h) [sic (g)] of the Rules. The said rule reads as under :

4. Contents of petitions.---(1)In addition to the particulars required to be given under Order VII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and section 20(1) of the Act, every petition for judicial separation, nullity of marriage and divorce shall contain the following particulars :

(g) property mentioned in section 27 of the Act, if any.

(h) Relief or relieves prayed for;

14. A mere reading of the rule quoted above will indicate that when there is no such property as envisaged by section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, there is no necessity to make such a disclosure because the rule states that the property should be mentioned, if there be any. The words if any assume importance. Had there been an indication to make the rule mandatory, then the words if any would not have been added. The said rule appears to have been framed to assist the spouse against whom the petition is filed so that proper order regarding disposal of property could be made by taking such plea in defence. Non-disclosure of the property in the petition cannot prevent the other spouses for demanding share in property covered by section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Rule 4(1)(h) is, therefore, not mandatory as claimed by the applicant. It would, however, he appropriate for the petitioner to make a statement in the petition which is duly verified that he or she does not possess the property covered by section 27 to obviate the delay in deciding the petition. In no circumstance, non-disclosure of the property as envisaged by Rule 4(1)(h) can be fatal to the petition, more so because of the absence of any provision providing for dismissal of the petition in the Act.

15. In the result, the revision petition fails and is accordingly rejected, without any order as to costs. The non-applicant may even now furnish the details of the property covered by section 27 in the light of the discussion above. Needless to say that the applicant-wife can resort to section 27 of the Act irrespective of the fact whether the non-applicant husband chooses not to disclose the property referred to above or partly discloses the same.

Revision rejected.