The High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal against a Family Court decree. The Family Court had ordered appellants to return money and gold ornaments allegedly entrusted by the respondent-wife. The High Court found sufficient evidence to support the lower court's view.
Original decree dismissing the appeal and ordering return of assets was upheld.
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 A.M.BABU
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/17TH PHALGUNA, 1938
Mat.Appeal.No. 557 of 2008 ( )
OP 481/2007 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT EATTUMANOOR.
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. MUKESH DAS, ELANJICKAL HOUSE, MANGARAM,KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA.
2. N THULASIDAS,ELANJICKAL HOUSE, MANGARAM,KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA.
3. RADHAMANI, ELANJICKAL HOUSE, MANGARAM,KONNI,PATHANAMTHITTA.
BY ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
RESPONDENT:
SMITHA NATH.S, MANALEL HOUSE CHENGALAM SOUTH PO, CHENGALAM KARA & VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM
BY ADV. SRIR.AZAD BABU BY ADV. SRI.MADHAVANKUTTY(CONCILIATOR )
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-01-2017, THE COURT ON 08-03-2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J &
A.M.BABU, J
*** * * * * * * * * * * * * *** Mat.Appeal No.557 of 2008 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 8th day of March 2017
J U D G M E N T
Shaffique, J
This appeal is filed by the respondents in O.P.No.481/2007 by which the Family Court granted a decree in favour of the respondent/wife to realise Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 9% from the date of suit or 80 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its present value of Rs.7 Lakhs with interest @ 9% from respondents 1 to 3.
M.A.No.557/2008
2
of Rs.1,50,000/-. According to her, the respondent was wearing some ornaments, but it was kept in her custody only and she had not entrusted any amount. Further, it is contended that the respondent had tied a thali chain weighing 10 sovereigns, which is still with the appellant and she is bound to return the same. The 1st appellant further submits that a chain weighing 32 grams is with him and he is willing to return the same.
M.A.No.557/2008
3
of South Malabar Gramin Bank was examined as PW6. He, along with PW8, had given evidence stating that the 1st appellant has taken a locker with the bank on 11/11/2007. The Family Court observed that when the 1st appellant has taken a locker facility within 10 days of the marriage, it clearly shows that he was in custody of the gold ornaments of the wife. Therefore, Family Court came to the conclusion that the respondent had 80 sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage and she had parted with Rs.1,50,000/- to the appellants which the appellants are bound to return.
M.A.No.557/2008
4
certificate can be relied upon as evidence only to show that the respondent was wearing gold ornaments which does not indicate that those ornaments were handed over to the appellants. It is also contended that there is no evidence of payment of RS.1,50,000 to the appellants.
M.A.No.557/2008
5
103 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The marriage was on 28/12/2006. It is stated that, from 07/01/2007 onwards, the 1st appellant was forcing the respondent to open a locker facility to keep the gold ornaments in safe custody. The respondent was willing to keep the gold ornaments in the locker, provided it is in their joint names. However, the appellants together did not permit and she was forced to accompany the 1st appellant to keep the gold ornaments in the locker which was in the name of the 1st appellant. She was not made a co-applicant for the locker facility. She gave all her gold ornaments to be kept in the locker except an ear ring weighing 6.680 grams, 3 rings weighing 3.540 grams, anklets weighing 20.200 grams, a pearl chain weighing 28.600 grams and two bangles weighing 17.540 grams. On 13/01/2007, the 1st appellant and the respondent proceeded to Delhi. It is further stated that when disputes arose between the parties, her parents approached SNDP Sakha for settlement of gold and money. But, nothing happened in the matter.
M.A.No.557/2008
6
ornaments will be kept safe. He further submits that though the SNDP Sakha, Pathanamthitta had interfered in the matter, on enquiry, they were satisfied that the complaint of the respondent was false. He further contends that he had not operated the locker facility and no gold ornaments were put in the locker. It is stated that none of the ornaments of the respondent is with the appellants or in the locker.
evidence has been appreciated. The Bank Manager was examined, who deposed to the effect that a locker was opened. There is no dispute regarding opening of the locker. Even according to the respondent, locker was opened for keeping the gold ornaments. The time at which the locker was opened further indicates that the locker was opened only for the purpose of keeping the gold ornaments of the respondent. Therefore, the contention of the appellants that the gold ornaments were not kept in the locker, cannot be believed. All the witnesses have spoken to the aforesaid fact and even the evidence of the SNDP Sakha supports the stand taken by the respondent. There is enough evidence to prove the fact of entrustment of money as
M.A.No.557/2008
7
well as the gold ornaments and the evidence relied upon by the Court below in regard to appropriation of the said amount as well as ornaments is rather clear. In the said circumstances, the appellants are liable to return the gold ornaments and the money entrusted to them. We do not find any perversity in the appreciation of evidence made by the Family Court, to take a different view to invoke the appellate jurisdiction.
The appeal is therefore dismissed. Parties shall bear their
own costs.
(sd/-)
(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)
(sd/-)
(A.M.BABU, JUDGE)
jsr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is justification for granting a decree for recovery of money and return of gold ornaments entrusted by the wife to the husband.
Whether the Family Court committed perversity in appreciating evidence regarding the entrustment of ornaments and money.
Whether the appellants are liable to return gold ornaments and money entrusted to them.
Mukesh Das
N Thulasidas
Radhamani
Smitha Nath.S
A.M. Shaffique
A.M. Babu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
