Kerala High Court
N.Velappan vs Geetha Raghavan on 26 September, 2018
Bench: A.M.Shaffique, P.Somarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 4TH ASWINA, 1940
Mat.Appeal.No. 192 of 2008
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 952/2002 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM
DATED 03-08-2006
APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER:
N.VELAPPAN, S/O NARAYANAN,
SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT (RETIRED), ELECTION
DEPARTMENT, KERALA SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM OF
PULANTHARI, NARAYANA NILAYAM, KARAKKONAM, KUNNATHUKAL
VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.VADAKARA V.V.N.MENON
SRI.T.N.SUKUMARAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
GEETHA RAGHAVAN, D/O M.K. RAGHAVAN ACHARI,
GEETHA BHAVAN, T.C 16/1781, JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.09.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Mat.A.No.192/2008
JUDGMENT
SHAFFIQUE, J This appeal has been filed by the counter petitioner/husband in O.P.No.952/2002. The petition was filed by the respondent herein/wife seeking partition of the petition schedule property.
2. The parties got married on 30.5.1985 and two children were born in the wedlock. The petitioner conteded that the petition schedule property was purchased in their joint names and sale consideration was equally spent. At the time of purchasing the property, she was employed and the appellant was also working in the Gulf countries. It is stated that later on the appellant deserted her and their children since 29.10.1997. Hence she sought for partition of the petition schedule property.
3. The appellant took up a contention that the entire amount utilised for purchasing the property was spent by him and therefore she is not entitled for partition. In fact, a building was also constructed in the property which according to him is constructed with his own funds.
4. Before the Family Court the petitioner was examined as PW1, two persons were examined on the side of the appellant as CPW1 and CPW2. The petitioner/wife relied on Exts.A1 to A13 and the appellant herein relied on Exts.B1 to B35.
5. The main controversy involved in the matter was relating to the expenditure incurred by either of the parties for purchasing the petition schedule property and constructing of the building thereon. After considering 3 Mat.A.No.192/2008 the evidence, the Family Court found that the appellant was unable to prove that the entire amounts required for purchasing the property and constructing the building was expended by him. It is found that there is no evidence to prove that he had been sending substantial amounts from abroad to his wife for purchasing the property. Her case was that most of the amounts sent by him was utilised for day to day requirements. That apart, it is held that there is evidence to show that the petitioner/wife was working as a Road Transport Officer and her earnings also would have been utilised for the purpose of purchasing the property in their joint names.
6. It is strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that though the petitioner/wife was employed and was earning, sufficient material is not available to indicate that at the time when the property was purchased she had expended any amount, nor is there evidence to prove that she had spend any amount for constructing the building.
7. Apparently, the petitioner wife was also employed and there is evidence to indicate that she was also spending amounts for acquisition of the property. When the materials placed on record are sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that both the parties were expending money for purchase of the property and the property was purchased in their joint names, the Family Court was justified in granting a preliminary decree as sought for.
8. The appellant had produced some material to indicate that he was sending money from abroad at the time of construction of building and therefore as far as the building is concerned, it should be allotted to his share. That apart, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that his 4 Mat.A.No.192/2008 mother is residing in the said building and she should not be disturbed. Even if partition is ordered, the building should be allotted to the share of the appellant.
9. What we find from the judgment is that the Family Court had already given a direction that the partition shall be effected in such a manner that the building portion is alloted to the share of the appellant/husband. Under such circumstances, we do not think that any further direction is required in that regard.
10. As far as the merits of the case is concerned, as already mentioned, the evidence available in the case indicates that both the parties had spend money for purchase of the property as both were earning income and therefore the finding of the Family Court is to be upheld. We do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the Family Court.
The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE kp True copy P.A. To Judge.