In this matrimonial appeal, the appellant contested the Family Court's dismissal of her claim for recovery of gold ornaments due to lack of evidence. The High Court held that without proof of quantity or supporting documents, the trial court was not in error and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2017/11TH PHALGUNA, 1938
Mat.Appeal.No. 430 of 2007
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP.155/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KALPETTA DATED 03-07-2007
APPELLANT/PETITIONER :
BABITHA, AGED 24, D/O.THANKARAJ, KOTTAYIL HOUSE, PUTHOORVAYAL P O, THRIKKAIPETTA VILLAGE KALPETTA, VYTHIRI TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SMT.CELINE JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :
1. RAMESH, AGED 29, S/O. MANI, MELEPARAMBIL HOUSE, ACHOORANAM P O, ACHOORANAM VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK.
2. MANI, MELEPARAMBIL HOUSE, ACHOORANAM P O, ACHOORANAM VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK.
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ami/
A.M.SHAFFIQUE & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Mat.Appeal No.430 of 2007
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2017
J U D G M E N T
A.M.Shaffique, J.
The appeal is filed challenging order dated 3.7.2007 in O.P.No.155/06 of the Family Court, Kalpetta. The appellant is the petitioner before the Family Court. The petition was filed seeking for recovery of gold ornaments valuing 91,000/- and return of 20,000/-. According to the petitioner, 20,000/- was paid at the time of marriage and the petitioner was having 13 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It is stated that soon after the marriage, the respondents had obtained the gold ornaments from the petitioner and utilised the same to clear their debts on account of the marriage of the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent's sister. Though the respondents appeared before the court, no counter statement had been filed. Hence, they were declared ex parte. The Family Court taking note of the evidence given by PW1, approved the claim of 20,000/- and directed the 1st respondent
Mat.Appeal No.430 of 2007
:-2-:
to return the said sum to the petitioner. However, in regard to the gold ornaments, it was observed that, since no evidence is adduced by the petitioner to show that she was having 13 sovereigns of gold ornaments and no documents were produced to prove the said fact, the claim of the petitioner that the respondents had taken away her gold ornaments was considered to be not proved and the said claim was rejected. It is impugning the aforesaid judgment that this appeal has been filed by the petitioner.
Mat.Appeal No.430 of 2007
:-3-:
petitioner. Further, there is no specific reason for not producing this document earlier. That apart, the document does not instill confidence on this Court to accept the same as additional document on account of the fact that there is every chance that it might be a subsequent creation. Accordingly, I.A.No.146/2010 is hereby dismissed.
Mat.Appeal No.430 of 2007
:-4-:
In the result, we do not find any reason to interfere with
the judgment of the Family Court and hence, this appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
ami/6.3.17
//True copy//
P.A.to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court erred in dismissing the claim for return of gold ornaments due to lack of proof of quantity and documents.
Whether the refusal to admit an additional document on ex parte application warrants interference.
BABITHA
RAMESH
MANI
A.M. SHAFFIQUE
K. RAMAKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
