Kerala High Court
P.P.Rajesh vs Deepthi P.R on 16 July, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIR 2021 KERALA 184, AIRONLINE 2021 KER 849
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque, Kauser Edappagath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1943
MAT.APPEAL NO. 632 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 683/2012 OF FAMILY
COURT,ERNAKULAM DATED 15.10.2016
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 P.P.RAJESH
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. LATE PURUSHOTHAMAN, PERINGOTTUKARAN HOUSE,
CHIRANGARA, KORATTY P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 308.
2 PONAMMA PURUSHOTHAMAN
AGED 58 YEARS
W/O. LATE PURUSHOTHAMAN, PERINGOTTUKARAN HOUSE,
CHIRANGARA, KORATTY P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 308.
BY ADV SRI.MAHESH V.MENON
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
DEEPTHI P.R
D/O. P.K. RAMANAN, PALAPILLIL HOUSE, NEDUMBASSERY,
ATHANI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 680 005.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.V.MOHANAN
SRI.BIJU.P.N.
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.07.2021, THE COURT ON 16.07.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal No.632/2018
-:2:-
"C.R."
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2021 Dr.Kauser Edappagath, J.
This is an appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, "the Act") against the judgment of the Family Court, Ernakulam in O.P.No.683 of 2012 dated 15.10.2016.
2. The first appellant and the respondent are divorced spouses. Their marriage took place on 26.01.2014 as per the Hindu rites. Two children were born out of the wedlock. The respondent instituted O.P.No.2425 of 2011 before the court below against the first appellant and obtained a decree of dissolution of marriage which has become final. The second appellant is the mother of the first appellant. The original petition (O.P.No.683 of 2012) was instituted by the respondent against the appellants for return of gold ornaments, household articles, cash as well as for damages. It is the case of the respondent that at the time of marriage her parents had given her 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments and `3,00,000/- in cash which was later on taken away and misappropriated by the appellants. It is further alleged that Mat.Appeal No.632/2018 -:3:- immediately after the marriage, the respondent had brought furniture and household articles worth `60,000/- from her house to the house of the appellants and in the year 2007, the father of the respondent had given furniture and household articles worth `40,000/- to the first appellant when they shifted to a rented house. According to the respondent, even after divorce, those furniture and household articles worth `1,00,000/- were with the appellants. It is also alleged that in view of the cruel conduct and harassment by the appellants, the respondent was put to much physical harm, mental pain and sufferings. The original petition has been filed for return of gold ornaments, household articles and money mentioned above as well as for damages. The total claim made was for `25,96,730/-.
3. In the objection statement filed by the appellants, they denied the case set up by the respondent that gold ornaments, furniture and household articles and cash were entrusted to them and they misappropriated it. It is contended that only 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to the respondent at the time of marriage and those were kept by the respondent herself in safe custody at her house. The allegation in the original petition that the respondent is entitled to damages for the Mat.Appeal No.632/2018 -:4:- alleged cruelty meted out to her by the appellants has also been denied. The appellants sought for the dismissal of the original petition.
4. The respondent had preferred O.P.No.2425 of 2011 against the first appellant for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The said original petition was tried along with O.P.No.683 of 2012. PWs 1 to 5 were examined on the side of the respondent and Exts.A1 to A20 were marked. RW1 was examined on the side of the appellants. Ext.X1 was marked as Court exhibit. After trial, the court below allowed both the original petitions. A decree of dissolution of marriage was granted in O.P.No.2425/2011. A decree for `25,00,000/- was granted in O.P.No.683/2012. No appeal has been preferred against the decree in O.P.No.2425/2011 and, thus, it has become final. The decree and judgment in O.P.No.683/2012 is under challenge in this appeal.
5. We have heard Shri Mahesh V. Menon, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Biju P.N., the learned counsel for the respondent.
6. The claims of the respondent are under the following four heads: (i) Claim for return of gold ornaments or its value, (ii) Mat.Appeal No.632/2018 -:5:- Claim for return of money with interest, (iii) Claim for return of furniture and household articles or its value, (iv) Claim for damages. We will discuss each claim one by one.
7. Claim (i): The definite case of the respondent in the pleadings is that at the time of marriage, her parents and family members gave her 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments, that after four days of marriage when she went to the matrimonial home she carried with her those gold ornaments and on the fifth day, the second appellant with the concurrence of the first appellant took the entire gold ornaments from her. It is further alleged that those gold ornaments were subsequently sold by the appellants within one year of marriage and sale proceeds were appropriated by them. To prove this, the respondent relied on her own oral testimony, the oral evidence of her father and aunt who were examined as PWs 2 and 4. The respondent also relied on Exts.A1 to A5 and A15 to A17.
8. The respondent gave oral evidence as PW1 in tune with the pleadings. In paragraph 51 of the chief affidavit, she has clearly narrated who all gifted her 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments. In paragraph 47, she has given details of the gold ornaments with its description and weight. In paragraph 49, she Mat.Appeal No.632/2018 -:6:- has stated that she had taken all the gold ornaments to the matrimonial home when she went there on the fourth day of marriage and all those gold ornaments were appropriated by the appellants. This positive evidence was not successfully challenged in cross examination.
9. PW2 is the father of PW1. He gave evidence to corroborate the evidence given by PW1. He also gave positive evidence regarding the gold ornaments possessed by PW1 at the time of marriage, its entrustment and misappropriation by the appellants. PW4 is the aunt of PW1. She deposed that she had attended the wedding and was also a party to the discussion and decision prior to the marriage. She clearly gave evidence that at the time of marriage, the parents of PW1 had gifted her 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments. She specifically stated that out of such gold ornaments, she had given a bangle weighing 3 sovereigns, her sister Ambika gifted a bangle weighing 3 sovereigns, her mother gifted a chain weighing 4 sovereigns, her brother Sugathan gifted a bangle weighing 4 sovereigns and her another brother Mohanan gifted a necklace weighing 5 sovereigns. She added that it was taking all such gold ornaments, the parents gifted 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments to PW1 at the Mat.Appeal No.632/2018 -:7:- time of marriage. This evidence given by PW4 is in tune with the evidence given by PWs 1 and 2. Even though Pws1, 2 and 4 were cross examined in length, nothing tangible could be brought out in cross examination to discredit their testimony.
10. It is a customary practice in our country, particularly in our state, among all the communities, that parents would gift gold ornaments to their daughters at the time of marriage as a token of love. Indian parents start making jewellery for their daughters since their birth to make sure that they have enough golden jewellery for their marriage. Thus, it would be unrealistic for a Court to insist for documentary evidence regarding ornaments that had changed hands at the time of marriage. The Court can, certainly, act upon oral evidence if it is found credible and trustworthy. It is also quite common that when the bride moves to the house of the groom after the marriage, she takes all her ornaments and entrust the same, except few required for daily wear, to her husband or in-laws for safe custody. Such entrustment also could be established by the sole testimony of the wife since, normally, no independent witness would be available to witness the same. Once such entrustment is made, a trust gets created. Being a trustee, the husband or his parents, as Mat.Appeal No.632/2018 -:8:- the case may be, is liable to return the same. In Leelamma N.P. v. M.A.Moni (2017 (3) KHC 340), the Division Bench of this Court held that once it is proved that gold ornaments were entrusted by the wife to the husband, the burden is on the husband to prove as to what happened to the gold ornaments. It is further held that if it was taken by the wife when she left the matrimonial home, the same has to be proved by the husband.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that there is vital contradiction in the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4 regarding purchase of gold ornaments and that PW1 failed to depose about the model of gold ornaments and price, etc. and as such, they cannot be relied on. The learned counsel brought our attention to the evidence of PW1, 2 and 4 in this regard. PW1 stated that 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments were purchased from the jewellery whereas PW2 deposed that 48 sovereigns of gold ornaments were with him and the balance were purchased from jewellery. PW4 deposed that all the gold ornaments including the presented items were purchased from the jewellery. This has been highlighted as vital contradictions. When the witnesses give evidence after lapse of so many years, marginal variations and discrepancies are bound to occur. On an over all Mat.Appeal No.632/2018 -:9:- appreciation of oral evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4, we do not find that those discrepancies are significant so as to doubt their veracity. The detailed description of the gold ornaments were given in a schedule in the chief affidavit. That apart, the appellants admitted in their objection statement that the respondent had with her 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. When the respondent was examined as PW1, the counsel for the appellants also put a suggestion that she was wearing 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. For all these reasons, we are of the view that the oral evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4 could safely be relied on.
12. To corroborate the oral evidence, the respondent relies on the documentary evidence such as Exts.A1 to A5 and Exts.A15 to A17. Exts.A1 to A4 are wedding photographs. It has been produced to prove that the respondent was wearing gold ornaments on the wedding day. Ext.A5 and Ext.X1 are one and the same. It is the copy of the marriage register issued by SNDP Sakha Yogam, Athani. It has been produced to prove the entry therein that the respondent was wearing 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. Ext.A16 is the estimate of gold ornaments issued by the jewellery from where gold Mat.Appeal No.632/2018 -:10:- ornaments were purchased. Exts.A15 and A17 have been produced to prove the source of PW2 to purchase the gold ornaments. Ext.A15 is a promissory note dated 12.12.2003 given by PW2 to one Sivan stating that he has borrowed `4,00,000/-. Ext.A17 is a certificate issued by the Ernakulam District Posts, Telecom and BSNL Employees' Co-operative Society Ltd. stating that PW2 had availed a cash loan of `82,500/- on 12.01.2004 for the marriage of his daughter.
13. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the above documentary evidence could not have been even admitted in view of the provisions of Sections 61 to 65 of the Evidence Act. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the reason that, in our view, the technicalities of the Evidence Act cannot be imported to a proceedings before the Family Court. S.14 of the Act provides for exception to the general rule of evidence regarding admissibility of statements and documents. It is clear from the section itself that the technicalities of Indian Evidence Act regarding the admissibility or relevancy of evidence are not strictly applicable to the proceedings under the Family Court. In the matrimonial disputes before the Family Court, a discretion has been given to the Court to rely on documents Mat.Appeal No.632/2018 -:11:- produced if the Court is satisfied that it is required to assist the Court to effectively deal with the dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act. The rigor of the Indian Evidence Act, therefore, is not to be applied in a proceeding before the Family Court constituted under the Act.
14. Exts.A1 to A4 photographs would show that the respondent was wearing large number of gold ornaments on the wedding day. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent did not produce the negatives of the photographs nor did she examine the photographer to prove the photographs. The counsel also relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Mohammed Ali v. Raihanath and another (2015 KHC 820). It was held that the practice of passing orders for returning gold ornaments merely by looking at photographs without considering the question whether claim is plausible is not permissible. It is not a case where the respondent is relying on Exts.A1 to A4 alone. There are oral evidence as well as other documentary evidence. That apart, there was no much challenge to Exts.A1 to A4 at the court below. The next important piece of documentary evidence relied on by the respondent is Mat.Appeal No.632/2018 -:12:- Ext.A5. The learned counsel submitted that it is only a photocopy and the person who issued it was not examined. The counsel further submitted that by mere production of the said document, the contents of the same would not stand proved. The counsel relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Pramod E.K. v. Louna V.C. (2019 (1) KHC 292) in support of his argument. It was held that a document merely marked with or without the consent of opposite party in a proceeding before the Family Court is no proof unless contents thereof are either admitted by adverse party or proved through persons who can vouch for the truth of the facts. Ext.A5 is the photocopy of the extract of the marriage register issued by SNDP Sakha Yogam, Athani unit. It was let in evidence through PW1. Since the appellants disputed the said document, the respondent filed a petition as I.A.No.931/2016 at the court below to issue summons to the Secretary, SNDP Sakha Yogam, Athani to produce the certified extract of Ext.A5. The said petition was allowed and the certified extract of Ext.A5 was produced and marked as Ext.X1. In Ext.X1/A5 it is clearly stated that the respondent had worn 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments on the wedding day. PW1 was cross examined by the appellants on Ext.A5. The trend of cross Mat.Appeal No.632/2018 -:13:- examination would show that the appellants did not challenge the genuineness of Ext.A5 or the contents in it. The suggestion put forward to PW1 was that the entry in Ext.A5 that she was wearing 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments on the wedding day was made at her instance. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the dictum laid down in the above decision cannot be applied to the facts of the case and Ext.A5/X1 could be relied on to corroborate the oral testimony of PWs 1, 2 and 4. The appellants also challenged the source of PW2 to purchase the gold ornaments. As stated already, the definite case of the respondent is that some of the gold ornaments were gifted by her relatives, some were already with her parents and few were purchased. To prove the source, the respondent relied on Exts.A15 and A17. Ext.A15 would show that PW2 had borrowed a sum of `4,00,000/- on 12.12.2003 by executing a promissory note from one Sivan. Ext.A17 would show that PW2 had availed cash loan of `82,500/- on 12.01.2004 for the marriage of PW1. The marriage was on 26.01.2004. Exts.A15 and A17 were also not seriously challenged at the court. Exts.A1 to A5, A16 and A17 could be admitted in evidence and relied on with the aid of Section 14 of the Act.
15. PW1 gave evidence that she went to matrimonial Mat.Appeal No.632/2018 -:14:- home on the fourth day of marriage and she has taken with her the entire gold ornaments. She further deposed that on that night itself, the second appellant at the instance of the first appellant, collected entire gold ornaments from her under the pretext of safe custody and kept with her. She added that she was only given thali and two bangles for daily wear. She also gave evidence that later all her gold ornaments were sold by the appellants and the amounts were appropriated by them. In this regard, it is necessary to refer to certain contentions in the objection statement filed by the appellants. It is stated that, on the fourth day after marriage, the first appellant and respondent came to the matrimonial home and after two days they returned to the parental home of the respondent. On that day, the respondent entrusted her mother all the gold ornaments to keep in the bank locker and she returned to matrimonial home without any gold ornaments except few required for daily wear. Thus, the appellant admitted that respondent had carried all the gold ornaments when the couple reached matrimonial home on the fourth day. But, when PW1 was cross examined, the suggestion put forward was that when the respondent went to matrimonial home, she did not take any gold ornaments and it was kept with Mat.Appeal No.632/2018 -:15:- PW2. This is mutually contradictory stand. The appellants have also a contention that these gold ornaments were utilized by PW2 for the construction of his house. Ext. A18 building construction contract coupled with oral evidence of PW2 would show that the renovation and additional construction of the house took place only in 2009-2010.
16. The evidence discussed above would clearly establish that 75 sovereigns gold ornaments gifted to the respondent at the time of her marriage were entrusted to the appellants. The burden is upon the appellants to prove what happened to those gold ornaments. The appellants miserably failed to prove this. The oral evidence given by PW1 that the appellants sold the same and misappropriated the money is only to be believed. Hence, no interference is called for on the finding of the Court below that the appellants are bound to pay to the respondents the value of the gold ornaments.
17. Claim (ii): The respondent claimed under this head `3,00,000/- allegedly given to her by her parents and appropriated by the first appellant soon after the marriage. She also claimed interest to the tune of `1,96,730/- calculated at the rate of 8% per annum on `3,00,000/- from 26.01.2004. To prove Mat.Appeal No.632/2018 -:16:- this claim, the respondent relied on the oral evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4 alone.
18. The case of the respondent in the original petition as well as in chief affidavit of PW1 is that her parents gave her `3,00,000/- at the time of marriage and was appropriated by the first appellant later. In chief examination, in paragraph 15, the date of handing over of cash by her parents to PW1 was specifically spoken to by her as 26.01.2004, the date of marriage. But, in cross examination, she had a totally different story to tell. She deposed that the said amount was handed over on the date of engagement, i.e on 14.12.2003, that too, by PW2 to the uncle of the first appellant namely Rajan. When PW2 was examined, he had yet another version. He stated in chief examination that the said amount was given on the date of engagement by the uncle of PW1 namely Gopalakrishnan to the uncle of the first appellant namely Rajan. PW4 deposed that the said amount was given by PW1 to the uncle of the first appellant namely Rajan on 14.12.2003. Thus, the evidence in this regard is mutually contradictory and not convincing. Neither Gopalakrishnan nor Rajan mentioned above were examined. There is no other piece of evidence as well. Hence, we are of the view that the court Mat.Appeal No.632/2018 -:17:- below went wrong in allowing the said claim. We set aside the said finding.
19. Claim (iii): The respondent claimed under this head the value of the furniture and household articles worth `1,00,000/- allegedly given to the first appellant on two occasions. It is alleged that the furniture and household articles worth `.60,000/- were brought from the house of the respondent to the house of the appellants immediately after marriage in January, 2004. It is further alleged that thereafter when the respondent and first appellant shifted to the rented house in April, 2007, PW2 gave furniture and household items worth `40,000/- to the said house. It is also alleged that all the above items were retained by the appellants without allowing the respondent to take it back. PW1 and PW2 gave evidence to prove this aspect. It is pertinent to note that they were not cross examined on the said aspect. The evidence of PW5 would corroborate the evidence of Pws 1 and 2. PW5 is a driver of a tempo van who transported the furniture and household articles on the first occasion in January, 2004 to the house of the appellants and on the second occasion in April 2007 to the rented house. There is nothing to disbelieve his testimony. Hence, we confirm the finding on this claim.
Mat.Appeal No.632/2018-:18:-
20. Claim (iv): The respondent claimed under this head, `5,00,000/- as damages for the physical harm, mental pain and agony suffered by her by the cruel conduct and harassment of the appellants.
21. A contention has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Family Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim for damages on account of matrimonial cruelty. According to the learned counsel, such a claim for damages will not be covered by Explanation (c) or (d) to Section 7 (1) of the Act.
22. The claim for damages for the physical harm and emotional distress endured by the respondent at the hands of the appellant is a tortious action. 'Tort' is a broad legal term meaning an accidental or intentional wrongful act that injures another person. There are a few torts that relate specifically to marriage, such as fraudulent inducement to marry or dissipation of marital assets. There are other torts that are not specific to marriage, but frequently arise within the context of a marital relationship. These types of torts that happen during the marriage are categorised as 'Marital torts' and are actionable. 'Marital torts' are any tort inflicted by one spouse upon the other during marriage. One Mat.Appeal No.632/2018 -:19:- spouse can sue the other for tortious actions before the civil Court in the same way they can sue a stranger for his/her wrongful conduct like physical or mental abuse. On the above legal position, it is clear that the respondent has a cause of action to sue for damages. But, the question posed is, can such claim for damages be maintained before the Family Court?
23. A reading of Section 7 of the Act shows that it provides for jurisdiction of Family court to entertain certain class of suits and proceedings. As per the said section, a Family Court shall have, and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any District Court or any subordinate Civil Court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation. Explanation (c) refers to a suit or other proceeding between the parties to marriage with respect to their properties or of either of them whereas Explanation (d) refers to a suit or proceeding for an order of injunction in the circumstances arising out of the marital relationship. No doubt, the claim for damages for the cruelty endured by the respondent at the hands of the appellants is not one with respect to the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them. Hence, Explanation (c) is not attracted.
Mat.Appeal No.632/2018-:20:-
24. Explanation (d) provides that a Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain "a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship". The emphasis under clause (d) is on the fact that the suit or proceedings must stem from circumstances arising out of a marital relationship. Thus, a suit or proceeding seeking an order for whatever relief including compensation or damages will be within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, if it emerged in circumstances arising out of the marital relationship. The Family Courts Act, 1984 was enacted to have a mechanism for settlement of family disputes without formal trappings and with the intention to advance the cause of matrimonial happiness and harmony. Such generous objects behind the enactment can be achieved only by a liberal interpretation of the relevant expressions in the provisions of the Act, understanding real import of the social legislation. It is trite that the jurisdiction of a court created specially for resolution of disputes of certain kinds should be construed liberally. The restricted meaning if ascribed to Explanation (d) of S.7 would frustrate the very object of the Act. The Division Bench of this Court in Leby Issac v. Leena. M. Ninan and Others (2005 (9) KHC 960) took the view that the Mat.Appeal No.632/2018 -:21:- Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed by the husband for damages against his wife and father in law for the pain and sufferings suffered by him on account of the adulterous act of the wife. It was held that such a suit would be covered by Explanation (d) to S.7(1) of the Family Courts Act. For all these reasons, we hold that an action for marital tort by one spouse against other squarely falls within the jurisdictional competence of the Family Court. Such a claim can be made either along with the action for divorce or independently by way of a separate suit. Hence, the respondent's claim for damages is perfectly maintainable.
25. No wrongs should remain unredressed. All persons committing wrongs are liable in an action for damages. As stated already, the original petition for dissolution of marriage was tried along with this original petition. The dissolution of marriage was sought on the ground of cruelty. The definite case of the respondent was that, over the course of marriage, the appellants exercised cruelty, both physical and mental, on her. The case of cruelty set up by the respondent was satisfactorily proved and divorce was granted. Since the respondent sustained physical as well as mental injury as a result of the conduct of the appellants, Mat.Appeal No.632/2018 -:22:- she is entitled for damages. Hence, the appellants are liable to pay damages to the respondents.
26. The next question is about the quantum of damages entitled to the respondent. The Law of Tort is founded on the principle that every injury must have a remedy. One of the remedy available for the victim for the injury sustained by him/her on account of the wrongful act on the part of the tortfeasor is damages. It is settled that in the matter of assessing damages and determining the quantum of compensation, the court has to depend largely on peculiar features of the case bordering conjectures or surmises. Section 12 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down that in suits in which damages are claimed, any fact which will enable the court to determine the amount of damages which ought to be awarded is relevant.
27. There is no formulated rule or guideline to measure damages in the case of wrongs arising from marital tort. Damages for any tort, much less marital tort, are, or ought to be, fixed at a sum, which will compensate the victim, so far as money can do it, for all the injury he/she suffered. The victim is entitled to general damages for the injury sustained by him/her. General damages being those, which the law will presume to be natural Mat.Appeal No.632/2018 -:23:- and probable consequences of the wrongful act as soon as it is established that the tortfeasor is guilty of the wrongful act complained of, it will be presumed that the victim has sustained some damage and the amount he will be entitled is purely in the discretion of the court. Where the injury is material, specific and has been ascertained, it is generally possible to assess damages with some precision. But, that is not so, where the injury complained of is emotional distress or wounded feelings or mental pain and suffering, as in the most of the cases of marital tort. Not only it is impossible to ascertain, it is almost impossible to equate the damages to a sum of money. In cases where there is proof of outrageous tortious conduct, like deliberate and wanton physical assault, high handed mental torture or intentional infliction of emotional distress, by one spouse against the other, the Court is not powerless to grant even exemplary damages. One cannot measure in terms of money the injury sustained by wounded feelings.
28. Coming to the merits, the various acts of cruelty, both physical and mental, as well as harassment, meted out by the respondent at the hands of the appellants have been spoken to in detail by her in evidence. She deposed that she was abused Mat.Appeal No.632/2018 -:24:- physically, emotionally and sexually by the appellants. The Court below believed the said evidence and entered into a specific finding that the respondent had suffered lot of mental, emotional and physical harassment at the hands of the appellants. The said finding has become final. Taking into consideration these aspects of the case, the damages awarded by the court below cannot be said to be excessive.
The court below allowed the claims under all the four heads and a decree for `25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty five lakhs only) was granted in favour of the respondent as per the impugned judgment. We have found that the relief under the head No (ii) for return of money of `4,96,730/- granted by the court below cannot be sustained. Hence, the decree amount is reduced to `20,03,270/- [`25,00,000 - `4,96,730] (Rupees Twenty lakhs three thousand two hundred and seventy only) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the original petition till realisation. The appeal is allowed in part to that extent without costs.
Sd/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE Rp