Himachal Pradesh: <\/em>Major clarification on matrimonial property rights has been delivered by the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The case arose when the wife filed an application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act<\/strong> seeking return of her property, istridhan, gifts and other articles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the divorce had already been granted ex-parte earlier, the Family Court dismissed her property application, stating that once a divorce decree is passed and no property order is included, no independent order can be passed later and that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain such an application.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court clearly rejected this narrow thinking. It examined the purpose and scope of the Family Courts Act and held that Family Courts exist precisely to avoid forcing parties, especially men already ruined by litigation, into multiple legal battles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court explained that Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act<\/strong> states that \u201cCourt may make such provisions in the decree\u201d<\/strong><\/em> regarding property and applies to property \u201cwhich may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife\u201d.<\/em><\/strong> The use of the word \u201cmay\u201d shows that passing a property order along with divorce is discretionary and not mandatory. This means that failure to pass such an order at the time of divorce does not take away the court\u2019s power later.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n More importantly, the High Court emphasized that under the Family Courts Act<\/strong>, the Family Court has full authority to decide disputes relating to property of spouses. It relied on the statutory mandate that the Family Court shall have jurisdiction over \u201ca suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them\u201d.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The judgment highlights that Section 7 of the Family Courts Act<\/strong> gives wide jurisdiction to Family Courts, while Section 8 bars other civil courts from entertaining such disputes. Further, Section 20<\/strong> makes it clear that the Family Courts Act<\/a> has overriding effect over other laws. This legal structure exists to protect litigants, especially men who otherwise suffer repeated harassment through fragmented litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court categorically held that merely because the marriage already stands dissolved, the Family Court cannot wash its hands of property disputes. Doing so would force parties, most often men, to file fresh civil suits, increasing financial burden, mental stress, and legal harassment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court also clarified that even if an application mentions only Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Family Court must still adjudicate it fully, keeping in mind its wider powers under the Family Courts Act. This interpretation ensures that men are not denied justice due to technical drafting or procedural games.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Importantly, the Court noted that property disputes may include not only alleged istridhan but also gifts, joint property, or articles belonging exclusively to one spouse<\/strong>. These issues require evidence and proper adjudication and cannot be dismissed at the threshold.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Setting aside the Family Court\u2019s order, the High Court remanded the matter back for fresh decision on merits. It directed that evidence be recorded and the dispute be decided according to law. The Court further clarified that any decree passed on property issues would be treated as part of the divorce decree already granted.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This judgment recognises that men are often treated as expendable in matrimonial litigation, expected to walk away silently after divorce while facing endless property and financial claims. The ruling restores balance by reaffirming that legal closure must be complete and fair, not selective.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In simple terms, divorce does not mean a man loses his right to property justice. Family Courts cannot escape responsibility. Men, already emotionally vulnerable after marital breakdown, deserve one forum, one fair hearing, and one final decision \u2014 not endless legal punishment disguised as procedure.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This judgment strengthens the principle that justice should reduce suffering, not multiply it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\nExplanatory Table: Laws and Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n