Appeals filed against a Family Court decree allowing recovery of gold ornaments but rejecting a claim for rupees one lakh. The High Court rejected both appeals, upholding the trial court's findings on evidence regarding misappropriation and inconsistency in the wife's witness testimony.
Both appeals dismissed. No costs awarded.
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 A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2018 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1940
Mat.Appeal.No. 674 of 2011 B
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT, DATED 20.4.2011, IN OP(OS) NO.1321/2008 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA.
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
JOBIN,AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.DEVASSIA, MANAPRAMPALLIKKALAM, NEDUMUDY PANCHAYAT, CHENNEMKARY P.O., ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADVS.SRI.JOMY GEORGE SRI.SEBASTIAN THOMAS SRI.P.REJINARK
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.07.2018, ALONG WITH MAT. APPEAL NO.746 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A.M.Shaffique & P. Somarajan, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------Mat Appeal Nos.674 & 746 of 2011
---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2018
JUDGMENT
P. Somarajan, J.
Against the judgment dated 20.4.2011 in O.P.(O.S.) No.1321 of 2008 of the Family Court, Alappuzha, the respondent/husband came up with Mat Appeal No.674 of 2011 and the petitioners/wife and minor child filed Mat Appeal No.746 of 2011.
Mat Appeal Nos.674 & 746 of 2011
:: 2 ::
Mat Appeal Nos.674 & 746 of 2011
:: 3 ::
ornaments by the respondent/husband in the year 2007 in one Karthika Jewellery. Though he had undergone a lengthy cross examination nothing was brought out to discredit his evidence. The Family Court relied on the oral evidence tendered by PW4. The photographs produced and marked as Exts.A1 and A2 would also support that she was wearing in and around 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage and hence, we cannot see any ground to interfere with the finding rendered by the Family Court regarding entrustment of 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments, which were subsequently misappropriated by her husband, the respondent in the original petition, who is the appellant in Mat Appeal No.674 of 2011. Hence, the said order of the Family Court deserves no interference from this court.
Mat Appeal Nos.674 & 746 of 2011
:: 4 ::
that of PW1, the first petitioner. PW2 is none else her brother and PW3 is the paternal uncle. In fact, the case advanced by the petitioner is that it was through PW3 an amount of Rupees one lakh was given at the time of betrothal. According to PW3, it was entrusted with the respondent/husband at the residence of the petitioner. But an entirely different version was advanced by PW2 stating that the said amount was entrusted to the respondent at his residence. But he is admittedly not a witness to the alleged entrustment. PW3, on the other hand, admitted his presence in the house of the respondent at the time of alleged entrustment. There are some material inconsistencies between the oral evidence tendered by PW2 and PW3. It has to be borne in mind that PW2 was examined just after the examination of PW1 and thereafter the paternal uncle was examined as PW3. We have gone through the entire evidence tendered through PW1, PW2 and PW3 and we are at a loss to understand why the petitioner/wife took pain to examine her brother PW2 and what was the purpose to be served by his examination if he has only hearsay evidence in the matter in dispute. Subsequent examination of PW3 would speak volume what is behind
Mat Appeal Nos.674 & 746 of 2011
:: 5 ::
it. We are not in a position to interfere with the finding of the Family Court regarding the alleged entrustment of Rupees one lakh. In short, the finding rendered by the Family Court on both the issues, i.e. for return of gold ornaments which comes to 25 sovereigns or its value and the rejection of return of an amount of Rupees one lakh deserves no interference by this court.
Hence, both the appeals lack in merits, deserve only dismissal and we do so. No costs.
sd/A.M. Shaffique Judge
sd/P. Somarajan Judge
ahz/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether gold ornaments given at the time of marriage were recovered by the wife.
Whether rupees one lakh husband allegedly received at betrothal was recoverable.
Whether the Family Court's finding on misappropriation of ornaments and rejection of claim requires interference.
Jobin
Jomol
Hima
A.M. Shaffique
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
