Dismissed

Suresh K.R. v. Deepa S.

Kerala HC17 Jun 2019Mat.Appeal/231/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this matrimonial appeal, the appellant challenged a Family Court judgment ordering him to return gold ornaments and money seized from his wife. Upholding the lower court's finding that evidence prima facie supported the wife's claim despite denial, the High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the decree for Rs. 3 lakh and the almirah. No further relief was granted.

What did the court decide?

The Matrimonial Appeal was dismissed with no costs. The earlier order for return of gold ornaments and almirah remains intact.

Suresh K.R. Vs Deepa S. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR

¶6

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶7

Mat.Appeal.No.231 of 2013

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 221/2005 of FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM DATED 25-08-2012

¶9

APPELLANT/1st DEFENDANT:

¶10

SURESH K.R.

¶11

AGED 41 , S/O. RAMADAS, KUZHIYATHU VEEDU, MURUNTHAL, PERINADU P.O., KOLLAM-691 601.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.SAJU J PANICKER

¶13

RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 2 TO 4:

¶14

1 DEEPA S, AGED 28 D/O. SARASWATHY, DEEPA NIVAS, PADINJATTE CHERRY, PERUMON, PANAYAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 601.

¶15

2 RADHA, AGED 65 W/O. RAMADAS, KUZHIYATHU VEEDU, MURUNTHAL, PERINADU P.O., KOLLAM-691 601.

¶16

3 GANESH K.R., AGED 39 S/O.RAMADAS, KUZHIYATHU VEEDU, MURUNTHAL, PERINADU P.O., KOLLAM-691 601.

¶17

4 RAJESH K.R., AGED 34 S/O. RAMADAS, KUZHIYATHU VEEDU, MURUNTHAL, PERINADU P.O., KOLLAM-691 601.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL

¶19

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Mat.A.No.231/2013

JUDGMENT

SHAFFIQUE, J

This appeal is filed by the 1^st defendant in O.S.No.221/2005 of the Family Court, Kollam. The suit was filed by the 1^st respondent herein seeking return of gold ornaments and money. The Family Court by the impugned judgment permitted the plaintiff to realise a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation and a further amount of Rs.3,000/- being the value of almirah to be returned. Certain other directions were also issued to return the certificates, post office savings etc.

¶25

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment suffers from serious infirmity and error in so far as there is no evidence to prove the quantity of gold ornaments or entrustment of gold ornaments. The best evidence has not been produced.

¶26

The facts of the case would disclose that the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant got married on 25.1.1998 as per the Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. According to the plaintiff, at the time of marriage she was given 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It is further contended that defendants demanded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for the job of the 1^st defendant in a college and the said amount was also paid at the time of marriage. The plaintiff had received gift worth Rs.13,000/- which was also taken to the matrimonial home. The plaintiff further contended that on the 3^rd day of the marriage the defendants demanded the plaintiff to give all her gold ornaments. When she said that she had to contact her father, she was brutally manhandled and the defendants took away all her gold ornaments.

¶27

¶28

Mat.A.No.231/2013

¶29

Thereafter the gold ornaments were sold and the sale proceeds were misused. They had also misused the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Further the defendants had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the parents of the plaintiff. A child was born in the wedlock. But on account of matrimonial issues and the cruelty she had to suffer at the hands of the 1^st defendant she left the matrimonial home and claimed the aforesaid amounts.

¶30

The 1^st defendant in the written statement denied the allegations that the plaintiff was having 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and that Rs.1,00,000/- was given to him. According to him the plaintiff was having only 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments the same remains in her custody. He also denied having borrowed Rs.5,000/- or having appropriated any gift articles of the plaintiff.

¶31

Before the Family Court the evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 to PW3 on behalf of the plaintiff and 1^st defendant was examined as DW1. Exts. A1 and A2 are the documents produced. The Family Court after considering the evidence found that in the absence of any other evidence, the admission made by the defendants regarding the quantity of gold ornaments can be accepted. However, the Family Court found that there was no reliable evidence that the plaintiff had 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the relevant time and the admission made by the defendants was taken into account. As far as the entrustment of gold ornaments are concerned, the Family Court found that it is appropriate to hold that 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments has been taken away by her husband. As far as the claim for Rs.1,00,000/- is concerned, the same has been rejected. So also the claim for Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, the plaintiff

¶32

¶33

Mat.A.No.231/2013

¶34

was permitted to recover an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- being value of 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments. As far as the value of almirah was concerned, direction was given to return the same or to recover an amount of Rs.3,000/-.

¶35

The Family Court had believed the version of PW1 to PW3 regarding the entrustment of gold ornaments. But still a decree had been granted for value of 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and the value of almirah. We don't think having regard to the factual aspects involved in the case and evidence adduced by the parties that there is any perversity or error committed by the Family Court in granting the decree and accordingly we don't find any ground to interfere with the judgment.

¶36

The Mat.Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

N.ANIL KUMAR

True copy

JUDGE

P.A. To Judge.

Suresh K.R. v. Deepa S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh K.R. v. Deepa S.

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

Attuvayi Muslim Jama-Ath Vs M.Chellamuthu

Saramma Vs K.K.Abraham

Jaimon M.S. Vs Deepa D/O Mohanan

Muraleedharan Vs Radhika

Harshan Vs Leela

Harshan Vs Leela