C.R.P.No.2673 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR C.R.P.No.2673 of 2025 D.Purushothaman ... Petitioner Vs. Shobana ... Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying, to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee in I.A.No.05 of 2024 in H.M.O.P.No.337 of 2018. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vijayaraghaven For Respondent : Ms.K.Balagayathri O R D E R The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Court below, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner- husband under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a direction to the respondent-wife to return five sovereigns of gold dollar chain and half sovereign of gold ring given to the respondent. 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2673 of 2025 2. It is a specific case of the petitioner-husband that the respondent- wife was presented with five sovereigns of gold chain and half sovereign of gold ring at the time of marriage and the same has not been returned to the petitioner. 3. The respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that at the time of leaving the matrimonial home, the respondent-wife left her gold jewels in the matrimonial home and she had not taken away any of the belongings with her. 4. Before the Court below, no witnesses were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. 5. After hearing the parties, the application in I.A.No.5 of 2024 was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that the present petition is only a counter-blast to the petition filed by the respondent in I.A.No.2 of 2024, seeking return of jewels available with the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by taking this 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2673 of 2025 Court to the evidence of the respondent-wife, wherein, she had admitted that at the time of marriage, the petitioner's side presented five sovereigns of jewels and further submitted that in view of the specific admission, the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, referring to the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.865 of 2023, submitted that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner did not raise any point regarding the possession of jewels presented to her at the time of marriage. 8. A reading of the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.865 of 2023 would indicate that at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the husband submitted before this Court that the husband was having only five sovereigns of jewels with him and he was ready to hand over the same along with some silver articles to the wife. Further, during the arguments of C.R.P.No.865 of 2023, no mention was made regarding the possession of five sovereigns of jewels, presented by the petitioner's side, with respondent. If really five sovereigns of jewels presented by the petitioner's side was available with the respondent, certainly, at the time of making an offer for return of jewels, the petitioner would have insisted 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2673 of 2025 for return of jewels available with the respondent. Therefore, the present petition filed by the petitioner, subsequent to the order passed in C.R.P.No.865 of 2023, appears to be an after thought and the trial Court has rightly observed that the present petition is only a counter-blast for the proceedings initiated by the respondent and dismissed the application. I do not find any error in the impugned order. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 30.10.2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No ms To The Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2673 of 2025 S.SOUNTHAR, J. ms C.R.P.No.2673 of 2025 30.10.2025 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis