Partly allowed

Ajayakumar & Others v. Anupama M.Raveendran

Kerala HC12 Jun 2018Mat.Appeal/817/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this matrimonial appeal, the High Court held that the family court incorrectly awarded the return of household articles due to lack of evidence, while affirming the decree for Rs. 50,000 and 8 sovereigns of gold ornaments.

What did the court decide?

Decree for household articles or Rs. 15,000 set aside; decree for Rs. 50,000 and 8 sovereigns gold ornaments affirmed.

Ajayakumar & Others Vs Anupama M.Raveendran — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1940

¶7

Mat.Appeal.No. 817 of 2009

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 891/2007 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR DATED 03-04-2009

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶10

1 AJAYAKUMAR, S/O.BHASKARAN,

¶11

PEROOR HOUSE (NADUMPALLIL), PALIYEKKARA MURI,,

¶12

THIRUVALLA VILLAGE.

¶13

2 BHASKARAN, PEROOR HOUSE (NEDUMPALLIL), PALIYEKKARA MURI, THIRUVALLA VILLAGE.

¶14

3 JAGADAMMA, PEROOR HOUSE (NEDUMPALLIL), PALIYEKKARA MURI, THIRUVALLA VILLAGE.

¶15

BY ADV.SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA

¶16

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶17

ANUPAMA M.RAVEENDRAN, D/O.RAVEENDRAN, MATTATHIL HOUSE, NATTAKOM VILLAGE,, KOTTAYAM TALUK.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPAKUMAR R1 BY ADV. SMT.T.G.SALITHA

¶19

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

K.HARILAL & A.M.BABU, JJ.

¶21

---------------------------

¶22

Mat.Appeal No. 817 of 2009 --------------------------Dated 12^th June, 2018

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

K.Harilal, J.

¶25

The first appellant is the first respondent in OP 891/2007 of the family court, Ettumanoor and the appellants 2 and 3 are the father and mother of the first appellant. The first appellant is the husband of the respondent herein. The parties are referred to as in the original petition. The petitioner filed the aforesaid original petition claiming a decree for return of an amount of Rs 50,000/-, 8 sovereigns of gold ornaments and household articles or Rs 25,000/- as the value of the household articles. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnised on 22.6.2003 and after the marriage they lived together only for a period of 49 days. In the meanwhile, their marital relationship has become strained and they fell apart and started to live separately. According to the petitioner, at the time of marriage she was wearing 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments and an

¶26

¶27

Mat.Appeal No. 817 of 2009

¶28

amount of Rs 50,000/- had been entrusted with the respondents as share of the petitioner. Out of the said 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments, 8 sovereigns of gold ornaments were still with the respondents. After the marriage the parents of the petitioner has given household articles worth Rs 25,000/- to the respondents. Though, she has demanded the return of money, gold ornaments and articles, they have not returned the same so far.

¶29

The respondents filed counter statement denying the claim for money, gold ornaments and household articles or its value. According to the respondents, no amount was given to them in connection with the marriage as share of the petitioner. There was no occasion to give any household articles to them except 'Nilavilakku'. As regards the gold ornaments, 4 sovereigns of 'tali' chain had been given by the first respondent to the petitioner and it is still with the petitioner. The petitioner entrusted a chain of 20 grams with the first respondent on the date of marriage and it is still with the respondent and ready to return the same.

¶30

¶31

Mat.Appeal No. 817 of 2009

¶32

Similarly, a gold ring was given to the sister of the first respondent and a bangle weighing ¾ sovereigns of gold was given to the third respondent and they are willing to return the aforesaid ring and bangle. Thus they have admitted the custody of about 3 sovereigns of gold ornaments. So also they contended that a locked bag belong to the petitioner is there in the house of the respondents and the key of that bag is with the petitioner. According to them, the petitioner has wilfully deserted the respondents. The decree for return of gold ornaments as prayed for is not allowable and they are willing to return the admitted ornaments only.

¶33

On the aforesaid pleadings, both parties adduced evidence. The first respondent was examined as PW1, his sister was examined as PW2 and the petitioner was examined as RW1 in a joint trial along with the other connected case. On appreciation of the aforesaid evidence the family court granted the decree allowing the petitioner to realise Rs 50,000/- with 9% interest and 8 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its present approximate value Rs 85,000/-

¶34

¶35

Mat.Appeal No. 817 of 2009

¶36

with 9% interest and also the household articles or Rs 15,000/- as its value from the respondents. The findings whereby the family court allowed the original petition and

¶37

granted the decree are challenged in this appeal.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. There is no representation on the side of the respondent.

¶39

It is a case of the petitioner that at the time of marriage, she was wearing 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments and her father had entrusted Rs 50,000/- with the first respondent as share of the petitioner. In addition to that household articles worth Rs 25,000/- were given to the respondents after the marriage. After the marriage, they lived together for 49 days only and marital relationship became strained and they fell apart due to the alleged illtreatment and harassment from the part of the first respondent. In order to prove the entrustment of Rs 50,000/- with the first respondent in connection with the marriage as share of the petitioner, the petitioner was examined as RW1 and she sworn proof affidavit in tune with

¶40

¶41

Mat.Appeal No. 817 of 2009

¶42

the averments in the petition. Though she was crossexamined, nothing has been brought out to discredit her versions as regards the claim of money, gold ornaments and household articles spoken to by her in chief examination. The respondents themselves admitted that they are in possession of 3 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Though, 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to the petitioner in connection with the marriage, according to RW1, 8 sovereigns of gold ornaments were with the respondents, when she left the matrimonial home. Thus, the claim of gold ornaments is confined to 8 sovereigns only and the respondents themselves admitted that the petitioner has given a 'tali' chain weighing 20 grams to the second respondent and another gold ring and a bangle weighing 3/4 sovereigns were given to the sisters. Thus, the respondents have admitted the receipt of 3 sovereigns of gold ornaments. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of RW1 as nothing has been brought out in crossexamination to discredit the evidence of RW1 with respect to

¶43

¶44

Mat.Appeal No. 817 of 2009

¶45

the claim of money and gold ornaments.

¶46

As regards the claim of household articles, during the cross-examination, the petitioner herself admitted that there was no 'Nallavathil' after the marriage in connection with the marriage. Therefore, there was no occasion to present household articles to the respondents. That apart, the third respondent did not agree to receive household articles from the parents of the petitioner. Thus, there is no evidence, except the oral assertion of RW1, to prove that the parents of the petitioner have presented any kind of household articles to the respondents after the marriage in connection with the marriage. Going by the impugned findings with respect to the household articles also we find that there is no reliable evidence to prove the said claim. But, the family court has failed to evaluate the evidence in this respect in its correct perspective. In the absence of evidence to prove the presentation of household articles worth Rs 15,000/-, the family court is not justified in passing a decree for return of household articles or Rs 15,000/- as its

¶47

¶48

Mat.Appeal No. 817 of 2009

¶49

value. The aforesaid finding alone would stand set aside.

¶50

In the result, the findings whereby the family court granted a decree to realise Rs 50,000/- and 8 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the respondents would stand affirmed and the decree for return of household articles or Rs 15,000/- as its value will stand set aside. Thus, this appeal is allowed in part.

¶51

sd/- K.HARILAL Judge

¶52

sd/-

¶53

A.M.BABU Judge

¶54

sks/14.6.2018

Ajayakumar & Others v. Anupama M.Raveendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajayakumar & Others v. Anupama M.Raveendran

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

C.A. Noorzaman Vs the Chief Executive Officer

K.K. Venugopal Vs the Chief Executive Officer

T.I. Varghese Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Kerala State Wakf Board

Diocese of Cochin Vs Jama-at Mosque

Jayanthi @ Jayanthi R.Ganesh Vs v.Raghu Ganesh

Sreedevi Vs Manoj & Others