The High Court of Kerala dismissed the matrimonial appeal filed by the wife and daughter, recovering the value of forfeited ornaments has not been substantiated, and the court rejected all claims including those on behalf of the deceased appellant. No costs awarded.
The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded to any party.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
MAT.APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2013
OP NO.362/2005 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR
APPELLANTS/PETITINOERS 1 AND 2:
1 USHA T.B., AGED 52 YEARS, D/O.LATE BALAKRISHNAN, THAMPURAN PADIKAL HOUSE, KORATTIKARA, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2 RAGI, AGED 33, D/O.P.K.MANI,THAMPURAN PADIKAL HOUSE, KORATTIKARA, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
P.K. MANI, AGED 63, S/O.LATE KOCHUKUTTAN, PANIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAIPARAMBU P.O. AND VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, DISTRICT-680001.
BY ADV SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MAT.APPEAL No.251 OF 2013 2
JUDGMENT
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This appeal is at the instance of the petitioners in O.P.No.362 of 2005 on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur. The 1st appellant, who is no more, was the wife of the respondent. The 2nd appellant is the daughter born in the wedlock between the 1st appellant and the respondent. They have filed the above original petition for recovery of the value of gold ornaments as well as for maintenance. The Family Court, partly allowed their claim. The Family Court directed the respondent to hand over 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its equivalent value to the tune of Rs.60,000/- to the 1st appellant. Besides, the Family Court ordered payment of Rs.1,20,000/- to the 2nd appellant. The claim of maintenance made by the 1st appellant was declined with the other claims made by her. Not satisfied with the decree, they approached this Court with this appeal.
MAT.APPEAL No.251 OF 2013 3
legal heir is the 2nd appellant. It is submitted at the Bar that the 2nd appellant is also having a brother and he is not made a party to this appeal.
MAT.APPEAL No.251 OF 2013 4
1st appellant. Anyway, since the 1st appellant is dead pending the
appeal, we find no reason to consider any other claim on her behalf, including maintenance.
Appeal fails. Dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE,
JUDGE
Sd/- SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE
DSV/06.07.2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against the Family Court order for recovery of gold ornaments and maintenance should be allowed.
Whether the Family Court's finding of misappropriation was supported by sufficient evidence.
Usha T.B.
Ragi
P.K. Mani
A.Muhamed Mustaque
Sophy Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
