Kerala High Court
Manoj.K.George vs Sheeja Koshy on 14 September, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2018 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1940
Mat.Appeal.No. 654 of 2010 (C)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 367/2006 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA,
DATED 14-09-2009
APPELLANTS- RESPONDENTS : -
----------------------------------------------
1 MANOJ.K.GEORGE, THEKKEVEETTIL,
MATTOM SOUTH, THATTARAMBALAM,
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
K.GEORGE, THEKKEVEETTIL,
MATTOM SOUTH, THATTARAMBALAM.
2 K.GEORGE, THEKKEVEETTIL,
MATTOM SOUTH, THATTARAMBALAM.
3 SUSAMMA GEORGE, THEKKEVEETTIL,
MATTOM SOUTH, THATTARAMBALAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
SRI.A.R.DILEEP
SRI.H.JAWHAR
SRI.V.SUNIL KUMAR (PANACHAMOODU)
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: -
----------------------------------------
SHEEJA KOSHY,
MUDIYIL KIZHAKKATHIL,
MATTOM NORTH, THATTARAMBALAM.
BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-07-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DMR/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE &
P. SOMARAJAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
Mat. Appeal No. 654 of 2010
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2018
JUDGMENT
A.M. Shaffique, J.
This appeal is filed against the judgment in O.P.No.367/2006 of the Family Court, Alappuzha. The original petition was filed by the respondent herein seeking for return of money and gold ornaments.
2. It is her allegation that the marriage was on 09.09.2002 and during the relevant time she was working at Muscat. At the time of betrothal, her parents had entrusted an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the first appellant and his parents. She was also given 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Her case is that the money was appropriated by the appellant and his parents. The gold was taken to Muscat from where the appellant had appropriated the same for the purpose of reconstructing his house. The marital relationship fell apart and they got separated. Though the respondent sought for return of gold ornaments and money, the appellants did not accede and hence the original petition was filed. Mat. Appeal No. 654 of 2010 2
3. The appellants denied the aforesaid allegation regarding the receipt of money and gold ornaments. Before the Family Court, PWs 1 and 2 were examined on the side of respondent/wife and RWs 1 to 4 were examined on the side of appellants. The respondent/wife relied upon Exhibits A1 to A3 whereas the appellants relied upon Exhibits B1 to B4. Exhibits X1 and X2 are the documents summoned and marked by the Family Court. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no evidence to prove the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- or that the appellant had appropriated the gold ornaments. The Family Court directed all the respondents to return an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and also 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value of Rs.1,78,000/-. There was a direction to deposit the entire amount within one month, failing which the petitioner was directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were not aware of the time specified by the Court below for depositing the amount. However, an amount of Rs.3,28,000/- was deposited on Mat. Appeal No. 654 of 2010 3 02.11.2009.
4. It is argued that there is no evidence to the source of fund or the appropriation of gold ornaments. The contention of the respondent that the gold ornaments were taken abroad and the first appellant had appropriated the same while he was in Muscat along with her is not a believable version. Normally when gold ornaments are taken abroad by a resident in India, necessary records will be maintained by endorsement in the passport or it will be certified from the Customs Department. In the present case, no such attempt had been made and therefore the contention that gold ornaments were taken abroad is not believable.
5. Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that at the time when the respondent left to Muscat, she had entrusted all her gold ornaments to her mother for keeping in safe custody in locker. Exhibits X1 and X2 read along with the oral deposition of RW4, the Bank Manager, proved the fact that the locker facility was availed just before the respondent left to Muscat. Mat. Appeal No. 654 of 2010 4
6. PW1 is the respondent herself and PW2 is her mother's cousin. RW1 is the appellant, RW2 is the second respondent, father of RW1, RW3 is the neighbour and RW4 is the Manager of Catholic Syrian Bank.
7. The photographs produced in the case apparently shows that she was having some gold ornaments. Though there is some evidence to indicate that the mother of the respondent operated locker on 25.09.2002, the same by itself cannot be a reason to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner had not taken any of her gold ornaments to Muscat. In her evidence, she has stated that while leaving Muscat she was wearing 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It is found to be factually incorrect by the Family Court. Therefore, the Family Court arrived at a conclusion that she would have taken 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments, which, according to her, had been appropriated by the respondent.
8. Despite the evidence adduced by either of the parties, the Family Court thought fit to believe the version of the respondent with reference to payment of money as well as Mat. Appeal No. 654 of 2010 5 appropriation of gold ornaments. Under such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the Family Court. However, since the appellants had deposited the entire amount on 02.11.2009 before the Family Court, the same would amount to satisfaction of the decree already passed.
In the result, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment. Hence, the Mat. Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE (JUDGE) Sd/-
P. SOMARAJAN (JUDGE) DMR/-