Dismissed

Pushpi v. Antony

Kerala HC25 Sept 2018Mat.Appeal/1224/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the appeal filed by the wife and children seeking return of gold ornaments and Rs. 75,000 alleged to be given at the time of marriage. The court held there was no proof of entrustment of ornaments to the husband and the wife had handled the marriage gift money herself. The Family Court's findings were not interfered with.

What did the court decide?

petitioner's claim for return of gold ornaments and Rs. 75,000 was rejected.

Pushpi Vs Antony — Succession and Inheritance | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 3RD ASWINA, 1940

¶7

Mat.Appeal.No. 1224 of 2015

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 541/2006 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM,

¶9

DATED 05.03.2015

¶10

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶11

1 PUSHPI,W/O.ANTONY,AGED 49 YEARS, MALIAKKAL HOUSE, M.A.MATHEW ROAD, PERUMPADAPPU, KOCHI -6 , NOW RESIDING AT KOLLASSERY HOUSE, KONAM, PERUMPADAPPU, KOCHI 6.

¶12

2 ANU, D/O ANTONY, AGED 23 YEARS, MALIAKKAL HOUSE, M.A.MATHEW ROAD, PERUMPADAPPU, KOCHI -6, NOW RESIDING AT KOLLASSERY HOUSE, KONAM, PERUMPADAPPU, KOCHI 6.

¶13

3 MANU, S/o ANTONY, AGED 19 YEARS, MALIAKKAL HOUSE, M.A.MATHEW ROAD, PERUMPADAPPU, KOCHI -6, NOW RESIDING AT KOLLASSERY HOUSE, KONAM, PERUMPADAPPU, KOCHI 6.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.K.L.JOSEPH

¶15

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶16

ANTONY, S/O.EASI, KOLLASSERY HOUSE, KONAM, PERUMPADAPPU, KOCHI 6.

¶17

BY ADVS.SMT.C.K.LEKHAMMA DR.V.N.SANKARJEE SMT.MARY JOHN SMT.M.SUSEELA

¶18

Mat. Appeal No. 1224 of 2015

¶19

¶20

SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI SRI.M.M.VINOD SRI.PRATHAP. S.R.K. SRI.S.SIDHARDHAN SRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN

¶21

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.09.2018. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Mat. Appeal No. 1224 of 2015

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

A.M.Shaffique, J.

¶26

This appeal has been filed by the petitioners claiming return of gold ornaments, money and value of articles gifted at the time of her house warming. The total claim is for an amount of Rs.2,65,000/-.

¶27

The short facts of the case are as under. The parties are described as shown in the original petition, unless otherwise stated. The first petitioner married the respondent and two children were born in the wedlock. Her contention is that at the time of marriage, she was having 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments which were given by her parents. That apart, Rs.75,000/- was given at the time of marriage. She also contended that at the time of house warming on 13.07.1993 her parents had gifted two wooden cots, a sofa set of three pieces and a table with two drawers and also household utensils worth Rs.10,000/-, the total cost of which would come to Rs.50,000/-.

¶28

As far as the household articles and utensils are concerned, the respondent agreed to return it and the same was returned. Therefore, what remains to be considered is the return of gold ornaments as well as an amount of Rs.75,000/-.

¶29

The respondent contended that after the marriage, he had gone abroad and he had not taken any of her gold ornaments. The entire gold ornaments were in her custody and she was utilizing the same for her

¶30

¶31

Mat. Appeal No. 1224 of 2015

¶32

own purpose. He was not entrusted with any of the gold ornaments nor had appropriated the same. He also denied having received Rs.75,000/-. He contented that all the income derived by him from abroad was sent in her name during the matrimonial relationship. Altogether a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- was sent to her on different occasions, which she herself had handled.

¶33

The first petitioner was examined as PW1 and two other witnesses were examined as PW2 and PW3. She relied upon Exhibits A1 to A4. Respondent was examined as RW1 and he placed reliance on Exhibits B1 to B31. PW1, in her evidence, had stated that the money sent by the respondent/husband was for conducting money lending business and she had not taken the same for herself. While being examined as PW1 she was confronted with Exhibits B27 to B31 which were the gold loan receipts. Exhibits B27 is the gold loan pledge token dated 27.10.2003. Exhibit B28 is a similar document dated 02.09.2004, Exhibit B29 dated 08.05.2003, Exhibit B30 dated 26.06.2003 and Exhibit B31 dated 04.11.2003. In her pleadings she never mentioned anything about having pledged any of the gold ornaments. Further, she also admitted the fact that she was wearing a thali chain which was weighing 6 1/2 sovereigns of gold.

¶34

When the factual situation is as stated above, there is no proof regarding the entrustment of gold ornaments to the respondent. Even

¶35

Mat. Appeal No. 1224 of 2015

¶36

¶37

otherwise, evidence would show that at the time of marriage, the respondent was employed abroad and she does not have a case that he had taken away the gold ornaments while going abroad. Therefore, the Family Court was justified in arriving at a finding that she herself was handling her gold ornaments and there is no case of either entrustment or appropriation. We do not think that a different view is possible to be taken in the matter.

¶38

As far as the claim for Rs.75,000/- is concerned, the Family Court found that the entire money sent by the respondent/husband was being handled by the first petitioner and therefore she cannot claim that any amount allegedly paid at the time of marriage should be returned. Further there is lack of evidence for arriving at such a finding. We do not think that any grounds have been made out for interference.

¶39

Mat. appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

DMR/-

Pushpi v. Antony

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpi v. Antony

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishore G Vs A.N. Anitha.

Priya Vs K.Rajan

Haneefa Vs Haseena

Manoj C.No, 6897 Central Prison Trivandrum Vs State of Kerala

P.M.Aswathy Vs K.G.Rajendran

Pushpi Antony Vs Antony K.E.