The High Court confirmed the family court decree for return of Rs 20,000 and 50 sovereigns of gold owed as dowry. However, it corrected the gold value to Rs 1,60,000 and increased interest to 12% per annum.
Decree for refund of Rs 20,000 with 6% interest retained; respondents to return 50 sovereigns of gold or pay Rs 1,60,000 with 12% interest.
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 K.HARILAL &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 13TH MAGHA, 1939
Mat.Appeal.No. 288 of 2006
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 51/2001 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM DATED 13-07-2006
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT:
K.K. ABRAHAM, KAKKATTUVEETTIL, VELLOOR P.O., VELLOOR KARA,, PAMPADY VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.
RESPONDENT(S):
1. SARAMMA, D/O. THOMAS, VALIYAMANNIL VEETTIL, KEEZHVAYPOORU KARA,, MALLAPPALLY VILLAGE AND TALUK,, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
2. RAHELAMMA, KAKKATTUVEETTIL,
R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-02-2018 ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL 63/2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.HARILAL & A.M.BABU, JJ.
---------------------------
MAT.APPEAL Nos 288/2006 & 63/2007 --------------------------Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2018
JUDGMENT
A.M.Babu, J.
We refer to the parties as they are shown in the original petition filed before the family court. Petitioner is the ex-wife of the first respondent. The second respondent is the mother of the first respondent. The petitioner sued for return of money, gold ornaments et cetera. Her claim was decreed partly by the family court. The petitioner and the first respondent are in appeal.
2
MAT.APPEAL Nos 288/2006 & 63/2007
marriage were also taken and appropriated by the first respondent. With the amount of Rs 44,000/- given by the brother of the petitioner, the first respondent purchased a motorbike. The petitioner is entitled to get back the money and gold ornaments taken from her by the respondents.
3
MAT.APPEAL Nos 288/2006 & 63/2007
4
MAT.APPEAL Nos 288/2006 & 63/2007
respondents at the time of the marriage. PW1 was crossexamined on that aspect. But both RWs 1 and 2 admitted the said entrustment. RW1 is the first respondent himself whose brother is RW2. RW1 in cross-examination spoke that at the time of betrothal Rs 20,000/- was not entrusted with him as patrimony of his wife. However, RW1 admitted that there was a payment of Rs 20,000/-. He said that it was for meeting the expenses of the marriage. The expenses of his marriage should be met by himself and not by the bride. RW2 also admitted receipt of Rs 20,000/-. He admitted that the amount was received by himself. It is also his evidence that he handed over the money to the first respondent. The amount of Rs 20,000/- received from the side of the bride by the respondents at the time of the marriage is dowry within the meaning of Sec.2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It shall be returned to the woman as provided in Sec.6 of the said Act within the time stipulated in the section itself. Till then, Sec.6 provides, the money shall be held by the person who holds it in trust for the woman. Thus, a statutory trust is created. Sec.10 of the Limitation Act is therefore attracted. It can be claimed back at any time. The claim is not barred by any length of time. The decree for Rs 20,000/- granted in favour of the petitioner by the
5
MAT.APPEAL Nos 288/2006 & 63/2007
family court should be confirmed.
6
MAT.APPEAL Nos 288/2006 & 63/2007
doctor. Another brother is working in a gulf country for a long duration. These matters are highlighted by the petitioner to show the status and financial capacity. In cross-examination PW1 maintained her stand successfully. The cross-examination did not produce any result favourable to the first respondent. PW1 spoke in cross-examination to the details of her ornaments. She spoke that she had at the time of marriage bangles, chains, necklace, studs et cetera. She spoke to the weight of some of the ornaments. PW1 asserted that her gold ornaments were taken from her by her husband for safe keeping. According to her, he sold her gold ornaments one by one. We do not find anything in the cross-examination of PW1 to disbelieve her evidence of bringing of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments by her and the appropriation of those ornaments by her husband.
7
MAT.APPEAL Nos 288/2006 & 63/2007
cannot be accepted inasmuch as normally when a proposal comes, the first thing that is ascertained is the avocation of the father of the girl. There are sufficient grounds to prefer the oath of PW1 to the oath of RW1. The family court also reached the very same conclusion so far as the claim for 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments is concerned. We do not find any reason to disturb the said finding. We concur with and confirm the findings of the family court that the petitioner had 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage and that the same were appropriated by the first respondent. The decree directing return of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments is only to be confirmed. We do so.
8
MAT.APPEAL Nos 288/2006 & 63/2007
family court directed to pay interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit on the money claim. Considering the fact that the price of gold escalated, the rate of interest fixed at 6% by the family court was too low. We find it just, proper and appropriate to fix the rate of interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till realization.
9
MAT.APPEAL Nos 288/2006 & 63/2007
retained. The respondents shall return the gold ornaments of the petitioner weighing 50 sovereigns or pay the value thereof. The value shall be Rs 1,60,000/- (one lakh sixty thousand only). That amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. The other claims of the petitioner stand rejected. As both the appeals are partly allowed, the parties shall suffer their own costs.
sd/-
K.Harilal Judge
sd/- A.M.Babu Judge
sks/6.2.2018
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the wife can claim return of money and gold ornaments alleged to have been given as dowry and subsequently misappropriated by the husband.
Whether the claim for return of gold ornaments is barred by limitation under Section 10 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the quantum of gold ornaments and interest awarded by the family court is correct and requires modification.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
K.K. Abraham
Saramma
Rahelamma
K. Harilal
A. M. Babu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
