An appeal by a former wife challenging a Family Court decree that partly decreed her claim for patrimony. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's rejection of her claim for 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments due to lack of proof and credibility issues.
Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
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
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1940
Mat.Appeal.No. 134 of 2008
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 1361/2003 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA DATED
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT (PETITIONER IN THE COURT BELOW
ELIZABETH @ MINI, AGED 23 YEARS, D/O. CHERIYAN, ANGADIYIL PALLATTU VEETTIL,, ANJILITHANAM MURI, KUNNATHANAM VILLAGE,, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, THIRUVALLA.
BY ADV.SRI.CHERIAN GEE VARGHESE
RESPONDENT(S)/(RESPONDENTS IN THE COURT BELOW):
1. ZACHARIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O. VARUGHESE ZACHARIAH, KANIYANTHARA HOUSE,, KANDATHILPADI, THIRUVANVANDOOR P.O.,, THIRUVANVANDOOR VILLAGE, CHENGANNOOR TALUK.
2. VARGHESE ZACHARIAH, KANIYANTHARA HOUSE, KANDATHILPADI,, THIRUVANVANDOOR P.O., THIRUVANVANDOOR VILLAGE,, CHENGANNOOR TALUK.
R,R2 BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.HARILAL & A.M.BABU, JJ.
--------------------------MAT.APPEAL No. 134 of 2008 --------------------------Dated 18th day of June, 2018
JUDGMENT
A.M.Babu, J.
The appellant is the ex-wife of the first respondent whose father is the second respondent. The appellant sued the respondents for recovery of her patrimony. The family court decreed her claim partly. She is in appeal against the denial of her claim on gold ornaments.
2
MAT.APPEAL No. 134 of 2008
respondents.
3
MAT.APPEAL No. 134 of 2008
and costumes. The ornaments worn by the bride is visible in the photograph. At no stretch of imagination the total weight of the gold ornaments seen on the body of the bride can be assessed at 40 sovereigns. As rightly said by the family court, the ornaments seen in Ext A2 photograph could not weigh more than 10 to 12 sovereigns. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that a pair of anklet worn by the appellant is not seen in the photograph as the same are covered by her saree. The appellant did not have such a case when she gave evidence as PW1. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the appellant did not wear all her ornaments while posing for Ext A2 photograph. PW1 did not have such a case also. It is impossible to accept the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 that the appellant wore 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of the marriage.
4
MAT.APPEAL No. 134 of 2008
her examination-in-chief about the entrustment or taking of the gold ornaments or the appropriation. It is true that in crossexamination she spoke that her ornaments were taken at different times. That was not her precise case in the pleadings. What was pleaded was not the taking of gold ornaments from time to time. The plea was that the appellant was asked to convert to the pentacost faith and all her ornaments were taken. The version in the cross-examination is therefore not in agreement with the pleadings. The appellant failed to prove the entrustment or taking of gold ornaments and the appropriation of the ornaments by the first respondent.
5
MAT.APPEAL No. 134 of 2008
sd/- K.HARILAL Judge
sd/-
A.M.BABU Judge
sks/18.06.2018
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant proves her claim for recovery of 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments allegedly appropriated by her husband.
Whether the findings of the Family Court regarding the value of ornaments are sustainable in view of the evidence.
If the explanation given in cross-examination by the appellant differing from pleadings affects the case for recovery of ornaments.
ELIZABETH @ MINI
ZACHARIAH
VARGHESE ZACHARIAH
K. HARILAL
A.M. BABU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
