Kerala High Court
Sudhakaran vs Ambily on 29 January, 2020
Bench: A.M.Shaffique, Mary Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 9TH MAGHA, 1941
Mat.Appeal.No.440 OF 2014
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO 270/2013 OF FAMILY COURT,
MAVELIKKARA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SUDHAKARAN,
S/O. PADMAKARAN, SURENDRAVILASAM, IDAKKUNNAM,
NOORANADU, MAVELIKARA.
2 CHELLAMMA
W/O. PADMAKARAN, SURENDRAVILASAM, IDAKKUNNAM,
NOORANADU, MAVELIKARA.
BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
AMBILY,
KAITHAVANATHARAYIL HOUSE, PALLICKAL.P.O.,
BHARANICKAVU VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA 690 504.
BY ADVS. SRI.A.R.DILEEP
SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL
SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal.No.440 OF 2014 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this, the 29th day of January, 2020 Shaffique, J.
The appeal is filed by the respondents in O.P.No.270 of 2013 of the Family court, Mavelikkara. The original petition was filed by the wife claiming return of gold ornaments and money.
2. The facts of the case is that the petitioner and the 1 st respondent got married on 27.04.1995 and two female child were born in the wed lock. According to her at the time of marriage, she was adorned with 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.1,50,000/- was given to the respondents as her parental share. Matrimonial issues had arisen between the parties on account of the fact, there was a demand for more dowry and she was treated with cruelty. On 22.10.2008, she was brutally manhandled and she left her matrimonial home. Thereafter they lived separately. On 24.04.2009, the petitioner went to the business place of the 1 st respondent/husband at Nooranadu and she found that he is having a relationship with another lady and on that day also she was brutally manhandled. Mat.Appeal.No.440 OF 2014 3 A criminal case came to be registered and thereafter she had filed criminal case for return of gold ornaments and money. Respondents having admitted the marriage and birth of two children denied the allegation of having appropriated any of her gold ornaments or money. They denied the fact that the petitioner was given 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and payment of Rs.1,50,000/- as parental share.
3. The above case was jointly tried alongwith a petition filed by the husband for divorce. Common evidence was taken in the case. On behalf of the petitioner PW1 to PW4 were examined and on behalf of the respondents RW1 to RW3 were examined. Exts.A1 to A5 (series) are the documents relied upon by the petitioner and Exts.B1 to B9 were relied upon by the respondents.
4. The Family Court allowed the petition filed by the petitioner/wife and directed to return 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its equivalent value of Rs.6,50,000/- and also the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- given as patrimony.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the petitioner's family had no source to give 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments or the money and therefore the allegations Mat.Appeal.No.440 OF 2014 4 raised are absolutely baseless.
6. With reference to the gold ornaments, other than the oral testimony of PW1 to PW4, evidence consists of Ext.A4, copy of the Marriage Register, prepared by the S.N.D.P. Shakha Yogam. As per the Marriage Register it is seen that she was adorned with 408 grams of gold ornaments. That apart, RW1, the 1st respondent and RW2 his brother, while being examined before the court admitted that she was adorned with 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments.
7. Regarding payment of Rs.1,50,000/- the said fact had been proved by PW1 as well as PW3, the President of the S.N.D.P. Shakha Yogam. The respondents in their objection denied the aforesaid fact, whereas, when they were put to box, the respondents admitted that the wife was adorned with 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Further there is evidence to prove that a crime came to be registered against the 1 st respondent wherein specific allegation was made regarding matrimonial cruelty and manhandling. The case had been filed under Section 498 A of IPC. All these facts would show that the wife had to suffer cruelty and therefore her version that gold ornaments and money had been appropriated stands proved. Mat.Appeal.No.440 OF 2014 5 RW1 is the 1st respondent, RW2 is the brother of 1 st respondent and a witness was examined as RW3. Their version will not in any way support the case of the respondents with reference to the claim for gold ornaments or money. Under such circumstance, when the Family Court had relied upon sufficient materials to arrive at a conclusion that the gold ornaments and money given as parental share of the petitioner was appropriated by the respondents, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said judgment. No grounds are made out for interference.
The Mat.Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH JUDGE NAB