S.N. Modi, J.
1. This revision application by the defendant is directed against the judgment arid decree of the judge, Small Causes Court, Jodhpur dated 23 5-1973.
2 The plaintiff respondent filed a suit alleging that her marriage with the defendant took place on 1-4-1967, that she was divorced on 10-6-71, that at the time of her marriage certain articles mentioned in Schedule A were give in 'dahej' that 'dahej' articles belonged to her and that since the said articles were retained by the defendant, she was entitled to get back those articles or their value amounting to Rs. 400/-. The defendant contested the Suit. He admitted that his marriage took place with the respondent but he denied that he divorced her. He also denied that the articles mentioned in Schedule A were given in 'dahej'. The learned Judge after evidence came to the conclusion that the defendant had divorced the plaintiff and that the former had not returned the articles given in 'dahej' to the latter. The learned Judge, therefore decreed the suit for Rs. 400/-. It is against this judgment and decree that the defendant has preferred this revision.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. There is no manner of doubt that there exists no satisfactory evidence on the record to prove that there had been divorce between the parties. The only evidence, in this connection, is that of the respondent herself, and that too is very vague. In my opinion, it was neither necessary nor proper for the learned Judge to go into the question whether the defendant had divorced the plaintiff.
4. There is satisfactory evidence on the record to show that the articles worth Rs. 400/- were given in 'dahej' at the time of marriage between the parties and 'dahej' articles remained with the defendant. It is common knowledge that 'dahej' is given by the father of the bride and in the present case also the articles mentioned in Schedule A were given by brother-in-law of the plaintiff at the time of marriage between the parties on behalf of the father of the plaintiff. There is nothing to show that the plaintiff had no right to take back from her husband the articles given in 'dahej' to the plaintiff by her father at the time of marriage even during the subsistance of the marriage. In absence of such evidence, the learned Judge cannot be said to have committed an error in decreeing the plaintiff's suit.
5. There is no force in this revision application and it is dismissed. I pass no order as to costs in this Court.