Dismissed

G.Sudeep Kumar and Another v. P.B.Mini

Kerala HC17 Jul 2018Mat.Appeal/417/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this matrimonial appeal, the High Court of Kerala rejected the appellants' challenge to a Family Court decree awarding them twelve of the wife's soy'veigns of gold ornaments, upholding the trial court's reliance on witness testimony in finding the wife's claim credible. appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no costs. The decree of the Family Court allowing the respondent to realise gold ornaments stands affirmed.

G.Sudeep Kumar and Another Vs P.B.Mini — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE &

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 83/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR DATED 9/10/2007

¶6

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶7

1 G.SUDEEP KUMAR, KALLEECKALTHEKETHIL

¶8

VANCHEESWARATH HOUSE, ERMAKUZHY MURRY,, PALAMEL VILLAGE, NOORANADU P.O.,, MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

2 M.B.RAJALAKSHMIKUNJAMMA,

¶10

KALLEEKALTHEKETHIL VANCHEESWARATH HOUSE,, ERMAKUZHY MURRY,PALAMEL VILLAGE, NOORANADU P.O.,, MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV.SRI.K.SASIKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶13

P.B.MINI, VADAKEPUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, THIRUVARPU KARA, KOTTAYAM TALUK.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶15

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

A.M. SHAFFIQUE & P.SOMARAJAN, JJ.

¶17

========================== Mat.Appeal No. 417 of 2008

¶18

====================

¶19

Dated this, the 17^th day of July, 2018

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

Shaffique, J.

¶22

This appeal has been filed by the respondents in OP No.83/2006 challenging judgment of the Family Court, Kottayam by which the petition filed by the respondent herein had been allowed and a decree had been passed permitting respondent to realise 14.3 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its approximate value of 85,800/- with 6% interest from the date of decree and 1,000/- as cost.

¶23

Parties got married on 31/7/2004 and they resided together only for two months. Petitioner contended that immediately after marriage, i.e., on 10/8/2004, 1^st respondent had sold 2¼ sovereigns of gold ornaments and appropriated the amount. Thereafter, all her gold ornaments were taken back except a thali chain. On 7/9/2005, her thali chain was also snatched away

¶24

Mat.Appeal No.417/08

¶25

-:2:-

¶26

by the 1^st respondent and ornaments were entrusted to the 2^nd respondent. On account of the cruel behaviour and torture, she had to leave the matrimonial home on 13/4/2005. According to her, the respondents have appropriated 14.3 sovereigns of gold ornaments which she is entitled to get back.

¶27

Respondents filed objection denying the entrustment and appropriation of gold ornaments. Before the Family Court, petitioner relied upon the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and Exts.A1 to A4. Respondents relied upon the oral testimony of RW1. The Family Court after considering the evidence on record found that the case set up by the wife/respondent herein was believable and accordingly granted a decree as stated above.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellants argues that there is no evidence to substantiate the grant of decree. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the Family Court.

¶29

The short issue to be considered in the above appeal is whether the petitioner/respondent had entrusted 14½ sovereigns of gold ornaments which were appropriated by the appellants. PW1 is the petitioner/respondent. PW2 is the sister of the

¶30

Mat.Appeal No.417/08

¶31

-:3:-

¶32

petitioner PW3 is the father of petitioner. All the three witnesses have clearly spoken about the gold ornaments they had given to the petitioner. It is clearly stated that while returning, she did not have 14½ sovereigns of gold ornaments which were given to her at the time of marriage. Ext.A2 is a photograph and negative which would show that the bride was wearing some gold ornaments though we cannot infer about the exact quantity. Ext.A3 is the receipt of a goldsmith Sri.K.Surendran who had made gold ornaments worth 64.98 gms. Ext.A4 is an estimate of a jewellery which indicates the price for 18.020 gms of gold ornaments.

¶33

On a consideration of the evidence on record, we find that the case set up by the petitioner/respondent herein is more believable.

¶34

RW1 who has been examined in the case on behalf of the appellant is his mother. She had denied entrustment and according to her, petitioner had only less than 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments and it was taken by her by stating that it has to be kept in the locker facility of her sister. But it is relevant to note that the first appellant did not enter the box. Further, the

¶35

Mat.Appeal No.417/08

¶36

-:4:-

¶37

evidence of RW1 does not instill confidence in this Court to believe the version of the first appellant.

¶38

Taking into consideration the overall factual circumstances, we do not think that the Family Court had committed any error in allowing the claim of the respondent. There is no merit in the contentions urged. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

P.SOMARAJAN, JUDGE

¶43

¶44

//True Copy//

¶45

PS to Judge

G.Sudeep Kumar and Another v. P.B.Mini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Sudeep Kumar and Another v. P.B.Mini

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

K.v.Haridas Vs M.N.Kalpakom & Others

Dr.a.G.Pankajam and Others Vs Sulekha and Others

Ravi, S/O.Latd Choma, C.NO.3037, Central Prision, Kannur Vs State of Kerala

R.v.Gangadharan Vs K.T.Leela

Jayakumar @ Unni Vs Lekshmi Preetha

K.R.Pazhaniswami Vs Chandrika Varasiar