The Court held the wife failed to prove the husband misused 75 sovereigns of gold, setting aside the debt decree. It confirmed the wife's ownership of a disputed property due to fraudulent gift to the husband's brother.
Mat. Appeal 1067 dismissed; Mat. Appeal 1068 partially allowed setting aside the gold relief and upholding the property declaration.
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.
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEA.MUHAMEDMUSTAQUE
&
THEHONOURABLEMRS.JUSTICESOPHYTHOMAS
FRIDAY,THE16THDAYOFJUNE2023/26THJYAISHTA,1945
MAT.APPEAL NO.1067 OF 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 119/2014 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
MATHEW.M
AGED45YEARS,S/O.MATHEW,CIVILENGINEER,
KODOPALLY,CHITTADIPO,VIAALAKODE,THIMIRI
AMSOMDESOM,TALIPARAMBATALUK,NOWRESIDING
ATEZHILODE,CHERUTHAZHAMAMSOMDESOM,
P.O.EZHILODE,KANNURTALUKANDDISTRICTREP.
BYHISPOWERHOLDERJOSEPHMATHEW,AGED53
YEARS,S/O.MATHEW,RESIDINGATKOCHU
PARAMBIL,CHERUTHAZHAMAMSOMDESOM,P.O.,
EZHILODE,KANNURTALUKANDDISTRICT
BYADVS.
SRI.V.R.KESAVAKAIMAL
SMT.C.DEVIKARANIKAIMAL
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
CINIMOLAUGUSTINE.P
AGED41YEARS
D/O.AUGUSTY,STAFFNURSE,PATTERIPARAMBIL,
NELLIKKUTTYP.O,ERUVASIAMSOMDESOM,
TALIPARAMBATALUK,KANNURDISTRICT-670632.
BYADVSRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD
THISMATRIMONIALAPPEALHAVINGBEENFINALLYHEARDON
29.05.2023,ALONGWITHMat.Appeal.1068/2015,THECOURTON
16.06.2023,DELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal 1067 & 1068/2015
2
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEA.MUHAMEDMUSTAQUE
&
THEHONOURABLEMRS.JUSTICESOPHYTHOMAS
FRIDAY,THE16THDAYOFJUNE2023/26THJYAISHTA,1945
MAT.APPEALNO.1068OF2015
AGAINSTTHEORDER/JUDGMENTINOP619/2013OFFAMILYCOURT,
KANNUR
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1MATHEWM.
AGED45YEARS
S/O.MATHEW,CIVILENGINEER,KODOPALLY,
CHITTADIP.O,VIAALAKODE,THIMIRIAMSOM
DESOM,TALIPARAMBATALUK,NOWRESIDINGAT
EZHILODE,CHERUTHAZHAMAMSOMDESOM,P.O
EZHIKODE,KANNURTALUKANDDISTRICT,REP.BY
HISPOWERHOLDERJOSEPHMATHEW,AGED53YEARS,
S/O.MATHEW,CHERUTHAZHAMAMSOMDESOM,P.O
EZHIKODE,KANNURTALUKANDDISTRICT.
2 JOSEPH MATHEW, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O EZHIKODE, KANNUR TALUK AND DISTRICTBYADVS.
SRI.V.R.KESAVAKAIMAL
SMT.C.DEVIKARANIKAIMAL
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
CINIMOLAUGUSTINEP.,AGED41YEARS,
D/O.AUGUSTY,STAFFNURSE,PATTERIPARAMBIL,
NELLIKKUTTYP.O,ERUVASIAMSOMDESOM,
TALIPARAMBATALUK,KANNURDISTRICT.670632,
PRESENTLYWORKINGASSTAFFNURSEINTHE
MINISTRYOFHEALTH,KUWAITTHROUGHPOWEROF
ATTORNEYHOLDERAUGUSTYM,AGED78YEARS,
S/O.MATHAI,PATTERIPARAMBIL,NELLIKUZHYP.O,
ERUVESIAMSOMDESOM,TALIPARAMBATALUK,KANNUR
DISTRICT.670632.
Mat.Appeal 1067 & 1068/2015
3
BYADVSRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD
THISMATRIMONIALAPPEALHAVINGBEENFINALLYHEARDON
29.05.2023,ALONGWITHMat.Appeal.1067/2015,THECOURTON
16.06.2023DELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal 1067 & 1068/2015
4
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE &
SOPHY THOMAS, JJ.
Mat.Appeal Nos.1067 & 1068 of 2015
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2023
J U D G M E N T
Sophy Thomas, J.
These appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 11.08.2015 in OP No.119 of 2014 and 619 of 2013 on the file of Family Court, Kannur.
Mat.Appeal 1067 & 1068/2015
5
brother, for purchasing properties in her name. But, on breach of trust, the husband purchased property in his own name and subsequently, he gifted that property to his brother Mr.Joseph Mathew, so as to defeat her right. She had given amounts to the husband to meet the marriage expenses also, and she had also met the expenses for his visa to take him abroad. Later their relationship became strained, and in September 2012, the husband manhandled her and left her company. Since then they are living separate.
6
Mat.Appeal 1067 & 1068/2015
wife had no right, title or interest over that property. Since the brother of the husband expended considerable amount for purchasing that property, and as he was the one who took care of the education and other expenses of the husband, he executed a gift deed in favour of his brother. No gold ornaments were entrusted by the wife with the mother-in-law, and there was no occasion for the husband to misuse the same. He never received any amounts from the wife, though he is admitting that he was taken to Kuwait by his wife. According to him, he was employed in Kerala and he had sufficient amounts with him to meet the expenses for going to Kuwait.
Family Court allowed O.P No.619 of 2013, and partly allowed O.P
Mat.Appeal 1067 & 1068/2015
7
No.119 of 2014, directing the respondent/husband to pay a sum of Rs.17,25,000/- as the value of 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments. All other prayers in that OP were turned down. The husband has come up with these appeals, challenging the common judgment in O.P No.119 of 2014 and O.P No.619 of 2013.
8
Mat.Appeal 1067 & 1068/2015
the sale consideration shown was Rs.7,51,000/-. PW1 produced Exts.A2 and A3 statements of her accounts in Federal Bank, Chemberi and Cherupuzha branches. Ext.A2 will show that Rs.9,50,000/- was withdrawn from her account on 16.02.2009. Ext.A3 will show that an amount of Rs.10 lakh was withdrawn from her account on 08.10.2010 and 05.04.2011. There is nothing to show, what was the actual sale consideration of Ext.A4 sale deed. If we go by that document, the sale consideration was Rs.7,51,000/-. Prior to execution of that document, Rs.11,50,000/was withdrawn from her account, as evident from Exts.A2 and A3. Apart from that, there is testimony of PWs 1 to 3 to support the case of the wife that she had expended money to purchase that property. Exts.X2 and X3 also support her case.
Mat.Appeal 1067 & 1068/2015
9
forthcoming to support that plea. Admittedly, the marital relationship between the appellant/husband and respondent/wife went into rough weather in the year 2012. Ext.A5 gift deed was executed by the husband in favour of his brother on 22.09.2012. Obviously, no circumstances existed for executing such a gift deed by the husband in favour of his brother, which leads to an inference that, in order to defeat the wife and her claim over the schedule property, the husband executed Ext.A5 gift deed in favour of his brother. So, the learned Family Court rightly found that the schedule property absolutely belonged to the wife, as she expended money for purchasing that property, and there was nothing to show that the husband paid the sale consideration and he purchased the property in his own name. So, we find nothing to interfere with the finding of the Family Court that the wife is the actual owner of the petition schedule property, and the gift deed was fraudulently executed by the husband in favour of his brother. Since it was declared that the wife was the absolute owner of the petition schedule property, there was no need for any further direction to reconvey that property in her favour. So, relief © is set aside and relief (a) and (b) granted in O.P No.619 of 2013 are confirmed.
Mat.Appeal 1067 & 1068/2015
10
Mat.Appeal 1067 & 1068/2015
11
that, she was wearing 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. But, by no stretch of imagination, the ornaments seen in the photographs will come to 75 sovereigns. No bills for purchase of gold were produced by her or by her father. She has not stated when those ornaments were purchased. If it was a recent purchase for the purpose of marriage, definitely, purchase bills might have been there. Otherwise, she has to plead that, herself or her parents were in the habit of purchasing gold since her childhood, for the purpose of her marriage. As she had no such case, her statement that she was having 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments and all those ornaments were entrusted with her mother-in-law and it was subsequently misused by her husband etc. cannot be believed without a pinch of salt. Her father has no direct information regarding entrustment of gold ornaments by his daughter with her mother-in-law or about its misappropriation. So, we are of the view that the wife failed to prove entrustment of 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments with her mother-in-law, if at all she was having that much of gold given from her family. There is nothing to show that, her husband or in-laws misused or misappropriated any of her gold ornaments, as alleged by her. It is
Mat.Appeal 1067 & 1068/2015
12
pertinent to note that, she had not prayed for recovery of the gold ornaments in specie but, instead she prayed for its value alone. That also is a ground to doubt the case put forward by her. She has not stated when or for what purpose her husband misused her gold ornaments which was originally entrusted with his mother.
In the result, Mat.Appeal No.1067 of 2015 is allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree in O.P No.119 of 2014. Mat.Appeal No.1068 of 2015 is allowed in part, setting aside relief © and upholding relief (a) and (b) granted in O.P No.619 of 2013.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE
Sd/- SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE
smp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the wife proved she gifted 75 sovereigns of gold to her husband who misused it, or the lower court's award of Rs.17.25 lakh gold value stands.
Whether the gift deed in favour of the husband's brother was executed to defeat the wife's ownership claims.
Whether the quantum of gold ornaments claimed by the wife is supported by evidence of purchase or entrustment.
Mathew M
Joseph Mathew
Cinimol Augustine P
A.Muhammed Mustaque
Sophy Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court