Kerala High Court
Jojo Chacko vs Preethi Jojo on 11 April, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:31471
Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases
:-1-:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 229 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.01.2014 IN OP NO.20 OF 2013
OF FAMILY COURT, PALA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN OP:
JOJO CHACKO
AGED 40 YEARS
PULICKAL HOUSE, MADUKKA P.O., AND KARA ERUMELYNORTH
VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, WORKING AT P.B.NO.420,
DUBAI, WHO IS REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER P.V.CHACKO, AGED 77 YEARS, PULICKAL
HOUSE, MADUKKA P.O.AND KARA, ERUMELY NORTH VILLAGE,
KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK.
BY ADV K.K.JYOTHILAKSHMY
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN OP:
PREETHI JOJO
AGED 33 YEARS
PULICKAL HOUSE, MADUKKA P.O. AND KARA, ERUMELY NORTH
VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT EAMON
MATHAI, PREM VILLA HOUSE, ERAVIPURAM P.O.,PALLIMUKKU,
KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.
OMAR SALIM
K. REMIYA RAMACHANDRAN(K/001481/2018)
P.ABDUL NISHAD(K/537/2016)
AJISHA M.S.(K/376/2021)
A.N.BIJU(K/680/2011)
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.04.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.240/2014, 337/2014 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 11/04/2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:31471
Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases
:-2-:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 240 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.01.2014 IN OP NO.16 OF 2013
OF FAMILY COURT, PALA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN OP:
JOJO CHACKO
AGED 40 YEARS
PULICKAL HOUSE, MADUKKA.P.O., KARA, ERUMELY NORTH
VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, WORKING AT P.B.NO.420,
DUBAI, WHO IS REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER P.V.CHACKO, AGED 77 YEARS, PULICKAL
HOUSE, MADUKKA.P.O.AND KARA, ERUMELY NORTH VILLAGE,
KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK.
BY ADV SMT.K.K.JYOTHILAKSHMY
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN OP.:
PREETHI JOJO
AGED 33 YEARS
PULICKAL HOUSE, MADUKKA.PO AND KARA, ERUMELY NORTH
VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT EAMON
MATHAI, PREM VILLA HOUSE, ERAVIPURAM P.O.,
PALLIMUKKU, KOLLAM.
BY ADV SMT.E.S.SONI
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.04.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.229/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 11.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:31471
Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases
:-3-:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 337 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.01.2014 IN OP NO.20 OF 2013
OF FAMILY COURT, PALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
PREETHY JOJO
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O.JOJO CHACKO, PULICKAL HOUSE, MADUKKA.P.O.,
ERUMELI NORTH VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM,
NOW RESIDING AT PREMVIL, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.
OMAR SALIM
P.ABDUL NISHAD(K/537/2016)
K. REMIYA RAMACHANDRAN(K/001481/2018)
A.N.BIJU(K/680/2011)
AJISHA M.S.(K/376/2021)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
JOJO CHACKO
PULICKAL HOUSE, MADUKKA P.O., KARUMELI NORTH VILLAGE,
KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK.
BY ADV K.K.JYOTHILAKSHMY
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.04.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.229/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 11.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:31471
Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases
:-4-:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 539 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.01.2014 IN OP NO.23 OF 2013
OF FAMILY COURT, PALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
JOJO CHACKO
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O P.V.CHACKO,PULLICKAL HOUSE P.O.,ERUMELY NORTH
VILLAGE,KANJIRAPILLY TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,WORKING
AT P.B. NO. 420,DUBAI,REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.V.CHACKO,AGED 77
YEARS,PULICKAL HOUSE,MADUKKA P.O ERUMELY NORTH
VILLAGE,KANJIRAPILLY TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV K.K.JYOTHILAKSHMY
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
PREETHI JOJO,
AGED 36 YEARS,
PREETHI JOJO,W/O JOJO CHACKO,PULICKAL HOUSE,MADUKKA
P.O.,ERUMELY NORTH VILLAGE,KANJIRAPILLY
TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 513.
BY ADVS.
OMAR SALIM
K. REMIYA RAMACHANDRAN(K/001481/2018)
P.ABDUL NISHAD(K/537/2016)
AJISHA M.S.(K/376/2021)
A.N.BIJU(K/680/2011)
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.04.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.229/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 11.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:31471
Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases
:-5-:
SATHISH NINAN & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.
---------------------------------------
Mat.Appeal Nos.229, 240, 337 & 539 of 2014
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2025
J U D G M E N T
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN,J:
The above Mat. Appeals are filed challenging the common judgment dated 16.01.2014 in O.P Nos. 16, 20 and 23 of 2013 of the Family Court, Pala.
Mat.Appeal Nos.229 of 2014 and 337 of 2014 are filed by the husband and wife respectively, aggrieved by the judgment in O.P No. 20 of 2013 filed by the wife against the decree for return of money and gold ornaments.
Mat. Appeal No.240 of 2014 is filed by the husband against the dismissal of his O.P No. 16 of 2013 for declaration of title and injunction.
Mat Appeal No. 539 of 2014 is filed against the dismissal of O.P No. 23 of 2013 filed by the husband for divorce.
2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-6-:
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as 'husband' and 'wife'.
2. The brief facts leading to the case are as follows:-
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28.12.1998. A male child was born in the wedlock. After marriage, the husband went to Gulf country in connection with a job. According to the husband, they lived together only for a short period. The wife did not have any interest in physical relationship with the husband. When the wife came to know that the husband is coming to India in May, 2010, she filed a complaint raising false allegations against the husband due to which the husband had to return to Dubai. Several other complaints were also filed by the wife against the parents of the husband and they were threatened by the wife. Though the husband had invited the wife to come to Dubai, she refused to do so. Though a petition was filed for restitution of conjugal rights, the wife was 2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-7-:
not ready and willing to join the husband. The wife thereafter filed a petition for police protection, and thus put the husband and his family in difficulty. Earlier the husband filed O.P No. 1282 of 2010 before the Family Court, Ettumanoor for divorce, which was settled between the parties. The wife failed to fulfill the terms of settlement. The wife was behaving in such a manner that it was causing mental agony to the husband. The marriage between the husband and the wife became irretrievably broken and hence the husband filed a petition for divorce (O.P.No.23/2013).
3. The wife denied the allegation of cruelty- mental and physical. According to her, her parents had spent a substantial amount of money on a computer course for the husband. Thereafter, he was sent to Dubai along with wife's brother-in-law. After the husband got employment in Dubai, the in-laws started harassing her demanding more money. By utilising the amounts given by the wife, the husband purchased 2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-8-:
several properties in his name, whereas only one property is purchased in the joint names of the husband and wife. While the husband was abroad, the father-in- law misbehaved and sexually abused the wife. As forced by the husband, the wife constructed a residential building in the property which was in the joint names of the husband and wife, by spending ₹18,00,000/- and started residing there. The wife claims to have suffered physical harassment at the hands of her husband's parents. Thereafter, she filed several complaints before the police under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned Magistrate passed an order restraining the husband and his parents from doing domestic violence against the wife and also restraining them from alienating the properties. Thereafter, settlement was arrived at between the parties and she was forced to execute a document in favour of the husband. The wife attempted to contact the husband over phone, but he 2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-9-:
refused to talk and the harassment of the in-laws continued. Hence, the wife alleged cruelty by the husband and prayed for the dismissal of the divorce petition.
4. The husband also filed a petition for declaration and injunction (O.P.No.16/2013) against the wife in relation to an item of property. According to the husband, a property admeasuring 29.20 Ares were purchased in 2005 in the joint names of the husband and wife by utilising the money earned by the husband from his employment. No amount was contributed by the wife for purchase of the said property. Though the wife had agreed to convey her right over the said property in favour of the husband in 2005, she did not do so. Thereafter, O.P.No. 23 of 2013 was filed before the Family Court, Ettumanoor as O.P.384/2011 for divorce. Since the wife failed to convey her right over the said property, the husband filed Original Petition for declaration that he has exclusive right over the 2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-10-:
property above mentioned. The wife, on the other hand, claims one-half right over the properties mentioned in the petition and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. The wife filed a petition (O.P.No.20/2013) for realisation of money, return of gold ornaments against the husband. According to the wife, the wife was given 170 sovereigns of gold and a sum of ₹10,00,000/- by her parents. The entire amount was given to the husband. The husband was also sent to Trivandrum for undergoing a computer course, by spending amount. Thereafter, the wife's brother took the husband to Dubai and secured him a job in Dubai. The husband was given huge amounts, and utilising the said amounts the husband purchased several properties mentioned in the petition schedule item Nos. 1 to 4. The entire amount of ₹10,00,000/- was misappropriated by the husband. Except for the gold ornaments of 5 sovereigns, the entire gold ornaments of 165 sovereigns were pledged and the money was utilised by the husband. The husband purchased item no. 1 2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-11-:
property having an extent of 72.25 cents in Sy.No. 385/1/1 in the joint names of the husband and wife for ₹2,25,000/-. The wife's mother had withdrawn an amount of ₹3,75,000/- from the State Bank of India, Kollam and given it to the husband for purchasing the property. The entire amount was utilised by the husband for purchasing the property as well as for the expenses towards execution of the document. Thereafter, the wife gave an amount of ₹2,43,750/- after closing her cumulative term deposit account in Iravipuram post office on 17.12.2004. Making use of the said amount, the respondent purchased a rubber estate having an extent of 1 Acre 7 cents in Sy No. 385/1/1 of Erumely North Village, described as item No.02 in the schedule in the original petition. Thereafter, the husband purchased another property having an extent of 11.75 cents in survey no. 385/1 of the Erumely North Village with a residential building and a shop room mentioned as item no.03, on 29.06.2006. The wife gave an amount 2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-12-:
of ₹2,50,000/- for the purchase of the afore property. Again, money was demanded from the wife's parents for constructing a house in item No.1 property. On request, the wife's mother and brother gave a sum of ₹14,00,000/-, which was utilised for the construction of the building. Again an amount of ₹6,00,000/- was given by the wife for the purchase of a shop room in 1.395 cents of Erumely North Village. Though the husband had promised to purchase the properties in the joint name, he had purchased the properties in his sole name. The wife came to know about the execution of the document, only after obtaining copies of documents from the office of the Sub-Registrar. She claimed equal share in the properties scheduled in the petition and also declaration that she has got equal right in the properties scheduled in item Nos. 01 to 04. She also prayed for return of 170 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its equivalent money value from the husband. She further prayed for a direction to the husband to pay 2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-13-:
₹8,00,000/- to the wife.
6. The family court, after consideration of the entire evidence on record, dismissed the petition filed by the husband for declaration of title and injunction and also dismissed the petition for divorce. The family court allowed the claim of the wife for gold, in part, and the claim for money by directing the husband to return a sum of ₹10,00,000/- with the interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition within two months and to return 120 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the wife out of 170 sovereigns claimed. Aggrieved by the same, the husband and wife have come up in appeal.
7. After the conclusion of the trial and hearing of the original petitions by the family court, the wife filed I.A.No.515/2013 in O.P.No.20/2013 praying for amendment of relief portion and adding additional prayer No.IV to grant separate share of equal right over the properties scheduled as item Nos.1 to 4 in the 2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-14-:
petition and its possession to her. The above I.A. was dismissed declining the claim of the wife for declaration of equal right over the properties scheduled as item Nos.1 to 4.
8. We have heard Adv.K.K.Jyothi Lakshmy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Mat.A.Nos.229, 240 & 539 of 2014 and respondent in Mat.A.No.337/2014 and Adv.Omar Salim, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Mat.A.No.337/2014 and the respondent in Mat.A.No.229 & 539/2014, and Adv.R.Krishna Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in Mat.A.No.240/2014.
9. Firstly, we shall consider Mat.A No. 539 of 2014 filed by the husband against the dismissal of O.P.No.23/2013, which is filed for divorce. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28.12.1998. A male child was born in their wedlock. The husband filed a petition for divorce on the ground of 2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-15-:
cruelty. After marriage, in 2001 husband went to Dubai in connection with his job. In between, a petition for restitution of conjugal right was filed by the husband and thereafter a petition for divorce was filed since the wife did not join the company of the husband. From 14.01.2008, the parties are living separate. The Original petition for dissolution of marriage was filed in 2013. According to the husband, he filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and since the wife did not turn up to join the company of the husband, he has filed the petition for divorce. As regards cruelty, there is only a vague allegation that the wife inflicted mental cruelty against the husband. The husband was examined as PW1, a building contractor was examined as PW2, Husband's brother's mother was examined as PW3 and PW4 is a retired ayurveda doctor, who was examined to prove the illness of the father of the husband. Though they were examined, nothing was brought out in evidence to prove cruelty. It is an 2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-16-:
admitted fact that from 2008 onwards, both the husband and wife have been living separately. A legal notice was issued on 14.01.2008, and after the issuance of the legal notice, the wife was living separately from the husband. There is no case that there was any cohabitation after 2008.
10. It is an admitted fact that due to strained relationships, both are living separately from 2008 onwards and there was no cohabitation since then. The emotional bond between them withered away and the warmth of their marital relationship had gradually faded. Thus the marriage between the parties have become lifeless and irretrievable. In such circumstances, denying a decree of divorce would put the parties in unnecessary suffering, misery and emotional distress. The husband and wife have been living separate and apart for almost 15 years.
11. Refusal to live with the spouse also amounts 2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-17-:
to cruelty. In Rakesh Raman v. Kavitha [2023 SCC OnLine SC 497], it has been held that though in a given case, cruelty as a fault may not be attributable to one party alone and hence, despite irretrievable breakdown of marriage, keeping the parties together amounts to cruelty on both sides. Similarly, in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan [2023 SCC OnLine SC 544], it has been held that where there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage, then, dissolution of marriage is the only solution. In a recent decision of the apex court in Rajib Kumar vs. Sushmita Saha [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 727], it has been held that keeping the parties together despite irretrievable breakdown of marriage amounts to cruelty on both sides.
12. Though from 2008 onwards the parties were living separate, the divorce petition was filed in 2013 that too after five years of separation. Even now, they do not have a case that there was any cohabitation even after that. The fact that the wife had filed complaints 2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-18-:
against the husband before authorities is not in dispute. She alleges cruelty on the part of the husband. She had been keeping away from the company of the husband for a long time and there was no chance of a reunion. Therefore, we are inclined to grant a decree of divorce.
13. Secondly, we shall consider Mat. Appeal Nos. 337 of 2014 filed by the wife and 229 of 2014 filed by the husband against the judgment in O.P 20/2013 of the Family Court, Pala filed by the wife to declare that the wife has got equal right over the properties scheduled as item Nos. 1 to 4 in the plaint, for a direction to the husband to return 170 sovereigns of gold ornaments taken from wife or its value and for a direction to pay an amount of ₹38,00,000/- given to the husband at various occasions by the wife as well as by her parents. The family court allowed recovery of 120 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹10,00,000/-.
Mat.A.No.240 of 2014 is filed by the husband claiming 2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-19-:
declaration and injunction over the property mentioned in O.P.No.16/2013.
14. The husband has in O.P.No.16/2013 claimed exclusive rights in the properties having an extent of 29.20 Ares purchased in the joint names of the husband and the wife as per Sale Deed No.391/2005 and also for the permanent injunction. The wife, on the other hand, prayed for the declaration of one-half right of the properties scheduled as item Nos. 1 to 4 in the plaint.
According to the wife, the husband has purchased the properties mentioned in item Nos. 1 to 4 by utilising the money given by the wife's parents, brother and sister and hence, she claimed equal right over the properties. It was the specific case of the wife that though the husband had given assurance to purchase the properties in the joint name, he purchased the property in his own name except item No.1. Only the property obtained as per Sale Deed No. 391/2005 is in the joint name of the husband and wife and the other properties 2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-20-:
obtained as per Exts.B4 to B6 sale deeds are in the name of the husband. Since she claims that the entire properties are purchased utilising the amount given by her family, she claimed equal right over the properties. According to the husband, he was working abroad from 2001 onwards and all the properties, according to him, were purchased by utilising his own money obtained from his employment. The wife claimed that the property admeasuring 1.7 Acres in Sy.No. 385/1/1 of the Erumely North Village was purchased by the husband in his name for an amount of ₹2,15,000/- by utilising the cumulative term deposit which was in the name of the wife in the Iravipuram Post Office. An amount of ₹2,43,750/- was obtained by closing the term deposit on 17.12.2004. The wife has also claimed that the husband has purchased another property having an extent of 11.75 cents in Sy. No.385/1 of Erumely North Village for which the wife had obtained amount from her mother. Another property having an extent of 1.395 2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-21-:
cents with shop rooms therein was purchased by the husband utilising the wife's brother's money. Further, the building was constructed in the above said 72.250 cents of property for which the wife had given ₹14,00,000/-, which she obtained from her mother, brother and sister.
15. The purchase of all the above properties is admitted by the husband, but, according to him, it was making use of his money while he was working in Dubai and by availing loans and from the assistance of his parents, that he purchased the said properties and constructed the house. According to him, the wife has not parted with any amount for the said purpose. In order to prove his contentions, the husband gave evidence as PW1 and examined PWs. 2 to 4. The evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 also supported the evidence of the husband and also the documents produced as Exts. A1 and A2 series also proved the transfer of money in the name of the wife while he was working in Dubai. On perusal 2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-22-:
of Exts.A11 to A14, it can be seen that the husband had income from his employment and also availed bank loans during the afore period.
16. In order to substantiate the contention of the wife, she was examined as RW1 and her parents were examined as RWs.2 and 3 respectively. They supported the case of the wife. Ext.B3 was produced which proves that 72.250 cents in survey no. 385/1/1 of Erumely North Village was purchased in the joint name of the husband and wife. The wife also produced Exts.B7 to B16 documents to prove the financial status of the wife.
According to the wife, the mother had given amounts for purchase of property covered under Ext.B3 sale deed. She further contended that her mother had made certain withdrawals and kept the amounts with her and ultimately she gave these amounts to the daughter. The evidence adduced by the wife suggests that she had also contributed financially for purchase of the property mentioned in item No.1.
2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-23-:
17. In the original petition, the wife had claimed equal right over Item Nos.1 to 4 in the original petition, which is the properties purchased as per Exts.B3 to B6. Since the properties as per Ext.B3 are jointly owned by both husband and wife, this court does not see any reason to grant any additional relief to the wife in respect of Item No.1 property admeasuring 72.25 cents in Sy.No.385/1/1. Admittedly, the husband was working abroad from 2001 onwards and he was earning income. Ext.B3 sale deed reveals that the property was purchased in the joint name of the husband and wife. In order to claim exclusive right over the property purchased as per Ext.B3 sale deed, it is for the husband to prove that he had paid the entire amount for the property. However, the evidence adduced by the husband is not sufficient enough to prove the same. Hence, he is not entitled to get an injunction over the property as claimed for. According to the wife, the properties covered under Exts.B4 to B6 were 2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-24-:
purchased by utilising ₹2,15,000/- by closing her cumulative term deposit, ₹2,50,000/- from her mother and ₹6,00,000/- from her brother. The wife has failed to provide any convincing evidence to prove that the properties covered under Exts.B4 to B6 sale deeds were purchased by the husband using the funds provided by her family members. Whereas the husband has proved beyond doubt that he had the source to purchase the properties covered under Exts.B4 to B6 sale deeds.
18. The family court, after proper appreciation of the evidence, has found that Exhibits B4 to B6 sale deeds clearly establish the husband's absolute right to the property and Ext.B3 sale deed would show that the husband and wife are the joint purchasers and therefore they have equal right in the said property.
Furthermore, since the husband failed to establish his exclusive right to the property under Ext.B3 sale deed, he is not entitled to the injunction sought in O.P.No.16/2013. We do not find any reason to interfere 2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-25-:
with the finding of the Family Court that title over the properties covered under Exts.B4 to B6 sale deeds vests exclusively with the husband whereas title over Ext.B3 property vests jointly with both.
19. Next we come to the claim in O.P.No.20/2013 filed by the wife for return of gold and money. The family court has directed the husband to return a sum of ₹10,00,000/- and also to return gold ornaments worth 120 sovereigns. According to the wife, at the time of engagement, the husband was given an amount of ₹10,00,000/- and at the time of marriage, the wife was given 170 sovereigns of gold ornaments. According to her, after marriage, she took the 170 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the matrimonial home and these ornaments were appropriated by the husband for purchasing the properties and for his own needs.
According to the husband, the wife's family had given only an amount of ₹1,50,000/- out of which he purchased gold ornaments for ₹70,000/- and the remaining sum of 2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-26-:
₹80,000/- is with him and he is ready to pay back the said amount. The husband further contended that while she shifted her residence to Kollam, she had taken all the gold ornaments with her. Thus, the husband denied the misappropriation of gold and money alleged to have been given as patrimony.
20. In order to substantiate the case of the parties, they mainly relied on the oral evidence of the witnesses. Though the wife has a case that the gold ornaments were purchased from Bhima Jewellery, Thiruvananthapuram, no evidence was adduced to establish the same other than the oral evidence of the witnesses. Exts.B1 and B2 photographs do not justify the claim of the wife that she had such substantial quantity of gold ornaments i.e., 170 sovereigns. The husband had admitted payment of gold and money at the time of marriage, but according to him, the patrimony given was only ₹1,50,000/-, out of which he had purchased gold ornaments for the wife amounting to 2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-27-:
₹70,000/- and he admits that remaining sum of ₹80,000/- was with him. According to the wife, 170 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given and out of which 5 sovereigns were given to the wife and the entire remaining ornaments were appropriated by the husband. RWs.2 and 3, the parents of the wife also supported the contention of the wife. During cross examination, RW3, the wife's father had stated as follows:-
'വവ ഹ സമയ പ ത ക 120 പവന സ ര ഭര ങള കട തത 50 പവന സ ര ഭര ങള സമ ന ക ട യത ഉണ യരന. തമ ത 170 പവന' He also elaborated the details of the gold ornaments received. Though RW3 has stated that 50 sovereigns were received as gift, the details of the gold ornaments as stated by the father do not substantiate the same. During cross-examination, she had further testified that on the date of marriage, she had worn only 110 sovereigns. However, the family court, on appreciation of the evidence, found that 120 sovereigns of gold 2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-28-:
ornaments were worn by the wife at the time of the marriage and the husband is entitled to return 120 sovereigns. However, we take exception to the Family Court's findings, as the photographs submitted by the wife, marked as Exts. B1 and B2, taken on the date of marriage, do not support her claim of wearing 110-120 sovereigns of gold jewellery as claimed. From the photographs, it is evident that the wife is adorned with approximately 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments, which is significantly less than claimed. She had worn three or four long chains, along with around 8-10 bangles. No documentary evidence has been produced by the wife to prove the quantity of gold ornaments. It is admitted by the wife that five sovereigns of gold ornaments were in her custody. Hence, we hold that the wife is entitled for the return of 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the husband.
21. The husband has filed the appeal challenging the direction of the family court to return 2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-29-:
₹10,00,000/- to the wife. According to the wife, her father had given ₹10,00,000/- on 29.11.1998 as part of patrimony. The husband also conceded that the wife's father had provided with money, but claimed it was only ₹1,50,000/-. The wife's parents who were examined as RW2 and RW3 had also deposed in tune with that of the daughter. According to the wife, her brother was also working abroad at the time of her marriage. Other than the oral evidence adduced, no documentary evidence is adduced to prove the same. However, the husband had admitted that ₹1,50,000/- was paid by the wife's father. But, according to him, out of the said amount gold ornaments were purchased with ₹70,000/- and he admits that he is ready to return ₹80,000/- to the wife. Other than the contentions raised regarding the purchase of gold ornaments, no satisfactory evidence has been adduced by the husband to prove the same. The family Court, on appreciation of oral evidence adduced, has allowed the claim of ₹10,00,000/- put forward by 2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-30-:
the wife. We hold that the said finding of the family court is erroneous. Since the wife failed to adduce any satisfactory evidence regarding the entrustment of ₹10,00,000/-, the case put forth by the husband that only ₹1,50,000/- was entrusted to him is to be believed and we find that the finding of the family court on the above aspect is to be interfered with. As regards the claim for maintenance, it is for the wife to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The right of the wife to claim maintenance, if any, is left open.
Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of, as follows:-
1. Mat.A.No.539 of 2014 is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree of the Family Court in O.P.No.23/2013 are set aside. The marriage between the parties will stand dissolved by a decree of divorce.
2. Mat.A.Nos. 337 of 2014 is dismissed.
3. Mat.A.No.240 of 2014 is dismissed.
2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-31-:
4. Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 is partly allowed as follows.
a) The husband is directed to return gold ornaments worth 35 sovereigns or its present market value, within two months from the date of judgment, in default of which, the wife will be entitled to realise the same from the husband personally and from his assets, both movable and immovable.
b) The husband is directed to return ₹1,50,000/-
with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition within two months.
The judgment and decree of the Family Court is modified to the extent as above. No costs.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN JUDGE sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE MBS/ 2025:KER:31471 Mat.A.No.229 of 2014 and connect.cases :-32-:
APPENDIX OF MAT.APPEAL 337/2014 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MC NO.354 OF 2011 OF THE FAMILY COURT KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANUR DATED 20.10.2011