Appeals against a Family Court decree were filed regarding return of money and gold ornaments between husband and wife. The High Court found no error in the lower court's findings on gold ownership and monetary amounts and dismissed both appeals, sustaining the Family Court judgment.
Both appeals were dismissed; the Family Court judgment and decree were sustained.
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 A.M.SHAFFIQUE &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1940
Mat.Appeal.No. 451 of 2011
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 567/2010 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM DATED 09-05-2011
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
ROY THOMAS, AGED 35 YEARS S/O.LATE MATHAI THOMAS, KURUPPAMTHARA KARA, MANJOOR VILLAGE, (NOW RESIDING AT KURUPPANATTU HOUSE, KURIYANADU KARA, MANJOOR PO,, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT).
BY ADV.SRI.ESM.KABEER
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
SILJI, D/O K.O THOMAS, AGED 37 YEARS RESIDING AT KURISUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, EDAMATTOM KARA, EDAMATTOM P.O., POOVARANI VILLAGE,, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.680001
BY ADV. SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ BY ADV. SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-07-2018, ALONG WITH MA NO. 666/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
kp
A.M.SHAFFIQUE & P.SOMARAJAN, JJ
JUDGMENT
SHAFFIQUE, J.
These two appeals have been filed by the petitioner and 1st respondent in O.P.No.567 of 2010 of Family Court, Kottayam. By judgment dated 9.5.2011, the court below had decreed the petition claiming return of money and gold ornaments. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment to the extent that her entire claim has not been allowed, whereas 1st respondent challenges the judgment on the ground that the Family Court committed serious error in passing a decree.
accordingly. The parties are referred to as mentioned in the original petition.
The petitioner married the 1st respondent on 1.2.1999 and two children were born in the wedlock. The petitioner's case is that there was an agreement to pay Rs.5,00,000/- and 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments for the marriage and on
Mat.A. Nos. 451 & 666 of 2011 -2-
23.1.1999, the date of betrothal, petitioner's father entrusted Rs.2,00,000/- to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner also had 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage which was given as her share. According to her 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments were appropriated by the 1st respondent for his own purpose. That apart, her father had given Rs.3,00,000/- on 2.12.2006 and she had given the respondent an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on 4.9.2007. It is submitted that the entire amount had been appropriated by the 1st respondent and therefore a claim has been made.
Mat.A. Nos. 451 & 666 of 2011 -3-
marked on the side of the petitioner and Exts.B1 and B2 on the side of the respondent.
was supported by the evidence of PW2. However in the complaint filed by the petitioner before police, which is marked as
Mat.A. Nos. 451 & 666 of 2011 -4-
Ext.B1 she had stated that the 1st respondent had appropriated 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments which belonged to her. There is nothing to disbelieve her version. The 1st respondent's contention that he had purchased gold for her with the money given by the petitioner's father cannot be accepted. There is no such practice or custom in the community. When a girl is married in the Christian community, it is common practice that the gold is purchased by the girl's parents and not by the husband. Therefore such a contention cannot be accepted. For that reason itself, we do not think it necessary to interfere with the judgment of the Family Court directing return of 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments.
Mat.A. Nos. 451 & 666 of 2011 -5-
admits that the 1st respondent had appropriated only 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments, it may not be possible for a court to take a different view, though such a claim had been made in the present petition. Hence we sustain the order passed by the Family Court to the extend it directed the return of 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments.
There is no dispute about the fact that 1st respondent had received Rs.1,50,000/- at the time of the marriage. His contention that it was utilized for the purchase of gold ornaments cannot be believed as we have already mentioned. Therefore he is liable to return Rs.1,50,000/-. He also admits to have received a further amount of Rs.50,000/- received as advance for sale of property. Therefore, to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- there is no dispute. This fact is mentioned by the petitioner in Ext.B1 complaint also.
Mat.A. Nos. 451 & 666 of 2011 -6-
Rs.1,50,000/- on 4.9.2007.
Mat.A. Nos. 451 & 666 of 2011 -7-
given the money received by her by sale of her father's property having an extent of 28.5 cents. The fact that she had withdrawn Rs.1,49,500/- from her account cannot be disputed, which is evident from Ext.A4. The 1st respondent does not have a case, for what purpose the said amount had been withdrawn. As a husband he was bound to know, for what purpose she had withdrawn such a huge amount from her account. There is no such explanation in his pleading. The petitioner's definite case is that the said amount had been paid to him. Taking into consideration the evidence of PW1 and 2, we are of the view that their version in regard to the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- can be accepted.
The appeals stand dismissed. It is made clear that the amount deposited by the appellant in Mat.A.No.451 of 2011, shall
Mat.A. Nos. 451 & 666 of 2011 -8-
be adjusted towards the decree amount and it shall be open for the Family Court to pass further orders depending upon the adjustments so made.
SD/-
SD/-
P.SOMARAJAN, JUDGE
kp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court correctly decreed return of gold ornaments and钱款 despite appellants' challenge.
Whether additional claims for money and gold were properly rejected based on evidence.
Whether the appeal challenging the Family Court judgment required modification.
Roy Thomas
Silji
A.M. Shaffique
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
