Partly allowed

Manoj v. Sheeba

Kerala HC15 Sept 2021Mat.Appeal/763/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This matrimonial appeal challenged a Family Court judgment ordering the appellant to pay the respondent for misappropriated gold ornaments, a dowry claim, and household articles. The High Court upheld recovery of ornaments but reduced interest rates to 6% for monetary claims and awarded an ex-gratia sum of Rs. 15,000 for household articles without interest.

What did the court decide?

Gold ornaments recovery upheld. Interest reduced to 6% for gold and money claims. Household article claim modified to Rs. 15,000 without interest.

Manoj Vs Sheeba — Maintenance and Alimony | 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 DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 24TH BHADRA, 1943

¶7

MAT.APPEAL NO. 763 OF 2014

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 53/2013 OF FAMILY COURT,

¶9

KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI

¶10

APPELLANTS:

¶11

1 MANOJ, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. DIVAKARAN, ARIYAMATTOM HOUSE, KANJIKKUZHY P.O., KANJIKKUZHY VILLAGE, IDUKKI TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶12

2 KUMARI, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O. DIVAKARAN, ARIYAMATTOM HOUSE, KANJIKKUZHY P.O., KANJIKKUZHY VILLAGE, IDUKKI TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶14

RESPONDENT:

¶15

SHEEBA, W/O. MANOJ, NADUPRAMBIL HOUSE, KEERITHODU P.O,
KANJIKUZHY VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT
NADUPARAMBIL HOUSE, S.N. JUNCTION, KOCHUTHOVALA P.O.
KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI - 685 586.

¶16

BY ADVS.

¶17

SRI.R.PREM SANKAR
SRI.B.PREMOD

¶18

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

MAT.APPEAL NO. 763 OF 2014

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J

¶23

This appeal was filed assailing a judgment of the Family Court, Kattappana in a petition filed by the respondent herein for recovery of the gold ornaments, household utensils and money.

¶24

The Family Court allowed the petition directing the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.3,83,460/- being the value of the gold ornaments allegedly appropriated by the appellant together with 12% interest per annum from 2.11.2012 till realization. The Family Court also allowed recovery of an amount of Rs.10,000/along with 12% interest per annum from 2.11.2012 till realization. Another claim that was allowed by the Family Court, directing to the appellant to handover the household items mentioned in C schedule or in default to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- being the value of the household articles together with 12% interest from 2.11.2012.

¶25

We heard, Adv. Sri. Latheesh Sebastian, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Adv. Sri. B Premod, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶26

MAT.APPEAL NO. 763 OF 2014

¶27

¶28

We will advert to each of the claim.

¶29

Claim No.1 :- For recovery of gold ornaments.

¶30

The marital relationship between the parties have come to an end. The marriage between the 1^st appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 6.09.2001. According to the respondent, she adorned 16.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. Ext.A1 is the register maintained at the SNDP Branch, Keerithodu. This register is related to solemnization of marriage of the members of SNDP. The extract of the register would show that the respondent adorned 16.5 sovereign of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. According to the respondent, the appellant misappropriated and pledged the same with a private financial institution. The appellants’ case was that the gold ornaments were pledged by the brother of the respondent for obtaining money for the purchase of a new vehicle for him. There was no much dispute in regard to the pledging of the gold ornaments.

¶31

RW1 is the appellant herein and RW2 is the relative of the appellant, admitted in evidence that they are in possession of the

¶32

MAT.APPEAL NO. 763 OF 2014

¶33

¶34

receipts and the notice issued from the private financial institution in connection with the pledging of the gold ornaments. The Family Court relied on their own admission and found that the appellant failed to prove that the gold ornaments were pledged on behalf of the brother of the respondent. In the light of the finding as above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of entrustment and misappropriation of the gold ornaments. The appellants failed to prove that those gold ornaments were pledged on behalf of the brother of the respondent. In the absence of production of documents to prove that it was pledged on behalf of the respondent’s brother, the Family Court was justified, holding that the appellants misappropriated the gold ornaments. We, therefore, endorse the findings of the Family Court in this regard.

¶35

Claim No.2:- Money claim.

¶36

According to the respondent, an amount of sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid when she was thrown out of the residence of

¶37

the appellant on the 3^rd week of May, 2006. Her case is that the appellants’ family demanded dowry. In order to yield to their

¶38

MAT.APPEAL NO. 763 OF 2014

¶39

¶40

demand, her father paid sum of Rs.10,000/-. The Family Court ,on appreciation of evidence, came to a conclusion that there is nothing to disbelieve the oral testimony of the respondent. We also see no reason to disbelieve the oral testimony of the respondent in regard to the payment of Rs.10,000/- by her father. Therefore, the challenge to this findings is also failed.

¶41

Claim No.3:- C schedule movables.

¶42

This claim is in respect of the C schedule movables. There

¶43

were the household articles alleged to have been given at the time of marriage. This includes, Fridge, Almirah, Television etc. The marriage was taken place in the year 2001. The case was filed in the year 2012. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that even if, the case of the respondent is admitted, these movables have no worth value and therefore, direction given in the judgment to return or pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- is legally unsustainable.

¶44

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that it was

¶45

the practice in the community to handover the household articles at the time of marriage from the house of bride. And therefore, the

¶46

¶47

MAT.APPEAL NO. 763 OF 2014

¶48

appellant is bound to return the entire articles or will liable to pay the money value of the same. It is submitted that the money value shown in the petition is after the depreciation.

¶49

We need not to interfere with the findings to handover the household articles as it is come out in the evidence that the practice exists in that community. In the light of the findings in regard to claim No.2, we are also of the view that such handing over of household articles would have happened in this matter. However, according to us, directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/-, is also exorbitant. The depreciation value of those household articles were not assessed. The dispute arose only in the year 2012. We are of the view that to settle the dispute an amount of Rs.15,000/- can be awarded without any interest.

¶50

The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the interest awarded in this matter 12% at the commercial rate and the dispute is not arose out of a commercial transaction and such exorbitant rate of interest cannot be awarded. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, justified the award of interest at 12%.

¶51

MAT.APPEAL NO. 763 OF 2014

¶52

¶53

Having adverted to the rival contentions, we are of the

¶54

view that the interest have to be reduced at the rate of 6% for claim Nos.1 and 2. We already adverted in regard to claim No.3 that the respondent will not be entitled for any interest.

¶55

In the light of the facts and circumstances, we allowed the Mat. Appeal partly to the extent of the relief granted as above and accordingly disposed of the Mat. Appeal. No costs.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶60

Manoj v. Sheeba

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj v. Sheeba

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

Vijaya Vs Rajendran

Vijaya Vs Rajendran

The Kerala Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Advocates Association (Kateaa) Vs Rajiv Gauba IAS

Sudheer Vs Raseena Beegum

Sreekala N.P Vs Ganeesh M.K.

Anjanadevi Vs Kamalamma