Jisha v. Bineesh
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeal against Family Court decree on quantum of value for return of gold ornaments and household articles. The court held that under Order XX Rule 10 of CPC, value must be fixed as on the date of decree, not petition date, and modified the decree accordingly.
What did the court decide?
Respondent directed to return 280.240 grams of gold ornaments or pay `3,47,497/- with interest at 6% per annum; `5,000/- for household articles confirmed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1940
Mat.Appeal.No. 35 of 2012
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP 615/2006 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR DATED 17-07-2008
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
JISHA AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.LATE SURESH, VELEKKAT HOUSE,KAZHIMBRAM POST, PIN - 680 568, VALAPPAD,THRISSUR DIST.
BY ADVS. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ SRI.P.M.ABDUL JALEEL (KODUNGALLUR)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court was bound to fix the value of gold ornaments as on the date of decree instead of the date of petition.
Whether the High Court needs to modify the decree to reflect the higher gold value on the date of decree under Order XX Rule 10 of CPC.
Whether the claim for value of household articles should be confirmed as decreed by the Court below.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
JISHA
- respondent
P.B.BINEESH
Coram
A.M.SHAFFIQUE
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court