Kerala High Court
U.V.Manjusha vs Sivarajan on 20 February, 2026
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
Mat.Appeal No.1292/2017
1
2026:KER:15123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 1292 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.05.2017 IN OP NO.395 OF 2012 OF
FAMILY COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER (WIFE):
U.V.MANJUSHA
AGED 34 YEARS,D/O.USHA, RESIDING AT USHA
NIVAS,KANCHAMPAZHINJI,THIRUPURAM VILLAGE,
NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
BY ADVS.
SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR
SMT.S.HRIDYA
SHRI.JAYAN JOHN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT (Husband):
SIVARAJAN,AGED 51,S/O.CHELLAPPAN NADAR,
RESIDING AT SIVALAYAM,CHAROTTUKONAM,
KULATHOOR VILLAGE,UCHAKKADA PO, NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - PIN 695506.
BY ADV SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
18.02.2026, THE COURT ON 20.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal No.1292/2017
2
2026:KER:15123
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat.Appeal No.1292 OF 2017
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
The appellant is the petitioner in O.P. No.395/2012 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. She filed the petition claiming that she is the wife of the respondent herein. The reliefs sought in the petition were for recovery of gold ornaments and household articles, and for arrears of maintenance. By the impugned judgment, the Family Court dismissed her petition mainly on a finding that there was no legal marriage between the appellant and the respondent.
2. According to the appellant, she became the wife of the respondent through a "registered marriage" that took place on 23.10.2008 at the Perumkadavila Sub Registrar's Office. She further claims that the marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at her residence in the presence of the parents of both parties. It is further alleged that, at the time of marriage, her parents gave her 75 sovereigns of gold Mat.Appeal No.1292/2017 3 2026:KER:15123 ornaments and household articles worth ₹1,00,000/-. The respondent allegedly obtained 70 sovereigns out of those gold ornaments and misappropriated them for his personal purposes. The household articles were also entrusted to the respondent. Therefore, the appellant claims that she is entitled to recover 70 sovereigns of gold ornaments and the household articles. She also claimed past maintenance from January 2009 onwards, alleging that she had been abandoned and deserted by the respondent without providing any maintenance.
3. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, PW2 and CPW1, along with documentary evidence marked as Exts.A1 to A13 and Exts.B1 to B10. After evaluating the evidence, the trial court concluded that Ext.A1 marriage agreement is only a contract and would not confer upon the appellant and the respondent the legal status of husband and wife. The court further observed that, since the appellant belongs to the Christian religion and the respondent is a Hindu, a valid marriage between them is possible only under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The court also held that there was no proof of entrustment of gold ornaments or other articles with the respondent. Consequently, Mat.Appeal No.1292/2017 4 2026:KER:15123 the court declined all the reliefs, including maintenance.
4. We have heard Sri. Ayyappan Sankar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri. B. Krishnamani, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
5. In view of the rival submissions, the points that arise for consideration are whether the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is valid and whether the appellant is entitled to the reliefs claimed.
6. After evaluating the pleadings of the appellant and the evidence adduced by her, we have no hesitation in holding that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is invalid. As rightly held by the trial court, Ext.A1 is merely a contract between the parties and would not confer any legal marital status upon them. Though the appellant claimed that a marriage ceremony was conducted at her residence in the presence of both families following Hindu rites and customs, she has no case that she had converted to Hinduism prior to such ceremony. Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a valid marriage can be solemnized only between two Hindus. When the appellant admittedly professes Christianity, and in the absence of pleadings or proof of conversion, she could have Mat.Appeal No.1292/2017 5 2026:KER:15123 married the respondent, a Hindu, only in accordance with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Hence, we conclude that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is invalid.
7. Coming to the question whether the appellant is entitled to recover the gold ornaments or other articles allegedly given to the respondent, we note that the appellant mainly relies upon her oral testimony. Ext.A2 series, namely the marriage album, was marked in evidence during her examination. The respondent has not disputed the genuineness of the photographs contained therein. On an evaluation of her oral evidence in the light of the inferences that could reasonably be drawn from the album, we find that her claim that she had adorned nearly 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of the ceremony appears prima facie probable. It is true that the respondent raised a contention that the photographs were morphed. However, the said suggestion remained denied by the witness, and it is also improbable in view of the attending circumstances. Following the scheme of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, there is no embargo in acting on the photographs even without its negatives or Mat.Appeal No.1292/2017 6 2026:KER:15123 original.
8. The next aspect to be considered is whether the respondent had obtained her gold ornaments. Insofar as the claim for recovery of household articles is concerned, there is no serious challenge to the evidence of PW1. The trial court found that the appellant was not entitled to recover either the ornaments or the articles from the respondent. After considering the entire circumstances, we are of the view that the said conclusion was substantially influenced by the finding that the marriage between the parties was void. We make it clear that, irrespective of the validity of the marriage, if the evidence establishes that a woman, while entering into a relationship of the above nature with a man and in contemplation of starting a shared life, had entrusted or the man had obtained her gold ornaments or other valuables, she would be entitled to recover the same from him, as the transaction is in the nature of trust. In such circumstances, the trial court ought to evaluate the evidence in a manner similar to claims arising out of a marital relationship.
9. Since the trial court approached the matter predominantly from the standpoint of the validity of the Mat.Appeal No.1292/2017 7 2026:KER:15123 marriage, the conclusions arrived at stand vitiated. We therefore find it necessary to set aside the impugned judgment. At the same time, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration and accordingly remit the case to the trial court for fresh disposal, after affording both parties an opportunity to adduce further evidence, if they are so advised.
As a result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The matter is remanded for fresh consideration in respect of the question of return of the gold and other articles. Both parties shall be at liberty to adduce further evidence. We trust that the trial court will make every endeavour to dispose of the matter expeditiously.
The parties shall appear before the trial court on 31/03/2026.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN JUDGE Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
sv JUDGE