1 CGHC010281292026 2026:CGHC:32762 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 950 of 2026 1 - Smt. Shail Gandharv W/o Ramgopal Gandharv Aged About 28 Years R/o Om Nagar, Jarhabhata, Police Station Civil Lines, Post Office And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ramgopal Gandharv S/o Late Avadhram Gandharv Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Dodkadhri, Post Office Gopalpur, Tahsil And Police Station Katghora District- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vikrant Pillay, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None present (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 29/07/2026 The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, whereby the petitioner's application seeking payment of Rs.4,00,000/- 2 in lieu of the Streedhan articles has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by judgment and decree dated 21.02.2023 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 712A/2018, the petitioner was held entitled to the return of her Streedhan articles as enumerated in Ex.P-1. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner initiated execution proceedings in Civil MJC No. 21/2023 and filed an application seeking payment of Rs.4,00,000/- in lieu of the Streedhan articles mentioned in Ex.P-1. 3. It is contended that the articles specified in Ex.P-1 are old, worn out and substantially deteriorated with the passage of time and, therefore, their actual return would serve no meaningful purpose. It is further submitted that the learned Executing Court has erroneously rejected the application solely on the ground that there was no material to substantiate the valuation of the Streedhan articles. According to the petitioner, the valuation of Rs.4,00,000/- is reasonable and, in the interest of justice, the respondent ought to have been directed to pay the said amount in lieu of returning the Streedhan. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the respondent be directed to pay Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioner in lieu of the Streedhan described in Ex.P-1. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. From a perusal of the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2023 3 (Annexure P/2), it is evident that the petitioner was specifically held entitled to the return of her Streedhan articles as detailed in Ex.P-1. The record does not disclose that, during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner ever pleaded or established that the articles had been damaged or had become incapable of being restored, so as to justify a direction for payment of their monetary value in substitution thereof. On the contrary, the decree unequivocally directs restoration of the Streedhan articles mentioned in Ex.P-1. 6. Once the decree mandates delivery of the Streedhan articles, the petitioner cannot, at the stage of execution, seek substitution of the decree by claiming payment of Rs.4,00,000/- in lieu thereof. It is well settled that an Executing Court is bound to execute the decree as it stands and cannot travel beyond its terms by modifying, varying or substituting the relief granted therein. Since the decree is expressly for return of the Streedhan, the petitioner is entitled only to enforcement of that decree in its existing form. 7. The learned Family Court has further observed that the petitioner failed to produce any cogent material indicating the basis on which the Streedhan articles were valued at Rs.4,00,000/-. No bills, invoices, valuation report or other documentary evidence has been placed on record to substantiate the claimed value. Consequently, the learned Executing Court rightly held that payment of Rs.4,00,000/- in lieu of the Streedhan articles could not be directed. 8. A perusal of Ex.P-1, filed as Annexure P/9, also reveals that it merely contains a list of the Streedhan articles and does not indicate 4 their value. Having considered the material available on record, the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2023, and the impugned order dated 30.03.2026, this Court finds no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.08.01 13:19:40 +0530