Dismissed

A.S.Sindhudevi v. G.S.Rajesh

Kerala HC5 Mar 2021Mat.Appeal/68/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This matrimonial appeal against a Family Court judgment dismissing a suit for return of gold ornaments and money was dismissed. The High Court upheld the Family Court's finding that the appellant failed to prove her case due to lack of credible evidence and documentary support.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the parties were directed to bear their respective costs.

A.S.Sindhudevi Vs G.S.Rajesh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶7

Mat.Appeal.No.68 OF 2013

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 205/2006 DATED 01-11-2012 OF FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM

¶9

APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

¶10

A.S.SINDHUDEVI, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O.AYYAPPAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT PARIKKAL HOUSE, PUTHEN SANKETHAN, CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.R.NIKHIL SRI.P.ABDUL RAZAK SRI.ARUN BABU

¶12

RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

¶13

G.S.RAJESH, AGED 36 YEARS,

¶14

S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN PILLAI, TEACHER, KUZHIMATHIKKADU HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, FROM SREEKRISHNA SADANAM, CHIRAKKARA P.O., KALLUVATHUKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE R1 BY ADV. SMT.N.DEEPA

¶16

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Mat.Appeal No.68/2013

¶18

-:2:-

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Dated this the 5^th day of March, 2021

¶21

A.Muhamed Mustaque,J.

¶22

This appeal arises from the judgment in OS No.205/2016 on the file of Family Court, Kollam instituted by the appellant. That was a suit for return of gold ornaments and realisation of money. The suit was dismissed. Challenging the judgment, the appeal has been filed.

¶23

The case of the appellant/plaintiff was that at the time of her marriage, her father had given `5 lakhs to the respondent. Her case was that she was having 185 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage.

¶24

It is the specific case of the appellant that out of 185 sovereigns of gold ornaments, the respondent had taken 177 sovereigns of gold ornaments and pledged the same with the bank. The claim of the appellant was for return of `5 lakhs as well as for return of 177 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value.

¶25

Mat.Appeal No.68/2013

¶26

-:3:-

¶27

The respondent entered appearance and resisted the claim.

¶28

Respondent stated in the written statement

¶29

that the appellant or her father had not given `5 lakhs as alleged in the petition. He also denied pledging of 177 sovereigns of gold ornaments.

¶30

Before the Family Court, on the side of the appellant, PWs1 to PW3 were examined. PW1 is the appellant himself. PW2 is her father. PW3 is her maternal uncle. The Family Court did not believe the testimony of PWs1 to PW3. Family Court pointed out that there was no pleading to the effect that appellant's father had paid the alleged `5 lakhs by borrowing from others. Family Court also took the view that the financial status of the family is on the lower strata of the middle class. According to the Family Court, the version of PWs1 to PW3 is not believable.

¶31

The Family Court also did not accept the appellant's case that she was adorning 185 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The family background is also one factor which propelled the Family Court to come to such a conclusion. The Family Court also noted some discrepancies in regard to the date mentioned regarding

¶32

Mat.Appeal No.68/2013

¶33

-:4:-

¶34

the alleged misappropriation of the gold ornaments by the witnesses. The very case of the appellant was that they purchased jewellery from Sri.Ambika Fashion Jewellery, Kollam. The appellant relied on Exts.A6 to A8 cash bills to prove the alleged purchase. Ext.A6 is dated 6/2/1999 and Exts.A7 and A8 are dated 8/2/1999. The Family Court relied on Ext.X1 registration of Sri.Ambika Fashion Jewellery with the sale tax department. That would show that the jewellery started its business only on 01/04/1999. Therefore, the Family Court was of the opinion that the alleged purchase by the appellant from Sri.Ambika Fashion Jewllery is a false case put forward by the appellant.

¶35

Yet another main factor to be noted is that the very case of the appellant was that gold ornaments were pledged with the Bank. If the gold ornaments were pledged with the Bank, necessarily documents could have been produced before the Family Court to prove the same. No such attempt was made by the appellant before the Family Court. The Family Court discussed the entire pleadings and evidence and came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove the case to substantiate her claim. We do not find any infirmity with the

¶36

Mat.Appeal No.68/2013

¶37

-:5:-

¶38

finding of facts entered by the Family Court.

¶39

On appreciation of pleadings and rival evidence, we are the view that this appeal deserves only to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their costs.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

Dr.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

True Copy

JUDGE

PS to Judge

A.S.Sindhudevi v. G.S.Rajesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.S.Sindhudevi v. G.S.Rajesh

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

Abdul Rasheed Vs Thasleena

Jaijo C.Johny Vs Susan Baby

Dr. Jikky Vs Anitha Vikraman

Divya Mithran Vs Nithesh E.Narayanan

Sam George Vs Annie Sam

Anson Antony Vs Veena Priya