Madras High Court
CRP/1051/2024 of M.KUMARESAN Vs MANGAYARKARASI on 7 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.1051 of 2024
CNR: {HCMA010404272024}
M.Kumaresan
S/o.C.Marimuthu
..Petitioner
Vs
Mangayarkarasi
D/o.K.Kasi
..Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 15.02.2018 passed in F.C.I.A.No.187 of 2015 in F.C.O.P.No.180 of 2015 on the file of the District Family Court at Chengalpattu.
For Petitioner :
Mr.K.Duraimurugan
For Respondent :
No appearance
*****
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 15.02.2018 passed in F.C.I.A.No.187 of 2015 in F.C.O.P.No.180 of 2015 by the District Family Court, Chengalpattu, wherein the application filed by the respondent seeking return of articles under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, came to be partly allowed and the petitioner was directed to return the jewels covered under Ex.R7 and the petitioner was further directed to hand over the household utensils, which list was handed over by the respondent to the petitioner.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order. The respondent has been served with notice and the name of the respondent has also been printed in the cause list. However, there is no appearance for the respondent either in person or through pleader.
3. The main grievance expressed by learned counsel for petitioner is that the Court below has directed the petitioner to hand over the jewels purchased under Ex.R7 even without appreciating the fact that the jewels was purchased by the petitioner in his name on 15.06.2012.
4. It is quite clear from the materials placed before this Court that the Court below has relied upon the receipt dated 15.06.2012, which pertains to purchase of jewels from GRT. The receipt stood in the name of the petitioner. In view of the same, it cannot be held to be the jewels of the respondent/wife. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the marriage has already been dissolved in F.C.O.P.No.180 of 2015. The order passed by the Court below suffers from perversity since such an order has been passed in complete disregard to the evidence available on record. Insofar as the other direction issued by the Court below to return the household articles is concerned, the same has been complied with by the petitioner.
In the result, the order dated 15.02.2018 passed in F.C.I.A.No.187 of 2015 in F.C.O.P.No.180 of 2015 by the District Family Court, Chengalpattu, directing the petitioner to return the jewels covered under Ex.R7 is hereby set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm To The District Family Court, Chengalpattu.
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. gm Civil Revision Petition No.1051 of 2024 07-10-2026