Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN FRIDAY, THE25H DAY OF OCTOBER20133RD KARTHIKA, 1935 Mat.Appeal.No. 4 of 2003 ( ) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER
IN OP5991999 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE DATED2408- 2000 APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- K.GEETHA, D/O.OTHENAN, KOOMULLILMEETHAL, ERAVATHUR AMSOM, KALLODE DESOM, PERAMBRA P.O, KOYILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------------- 1. VIJAYAN, S/O.CHATHU, PARACHALIL HOUSE, CHEMBANODE P.O, KOYILANDY TALUK.
2. CHATHU, PARACHALIL HOUSE, CHEMBANODE P.O.
3. VIMALA, W/O. CHATHU, PARACHALIL HOUSE, CHEMBANODE P.O, KOYILANDY TALUK. R1 TO3BY ADV. SRI.MOHANAN V.T.K. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2510-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & P.D.RAJAN, JJ.
======================== Mat. Appeal No. 4 OF2003======================= Dated this the 25th day of October, 2013
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
This appeal is filed against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in OP No.599/99 filed by the appellant. The appellant and the 1st respondent got married on 01/01/1992. Respondents 2 and 3 are the parents of the 1st respondent. A male child was born in their wedlock on 12/12/1992. The parties are residing separately since 12/6/95.
2. In the OP, the wife claimed `70,000/- being the value of 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments and recovery of `12,500/-. By the impugned order, the Family Court held that the ornaments taken by the respondents were only 14 grams in weight. On that basis, Family Court ordered payment of `6,124/- towards its value. Rest of the claims were all rejected. It is aggrieved by this order, the appeal is filed.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
4. The first issue for consideration is whether the appellant was entitled to recover 20 sovereigns of gold or its Mat.Appeal No.4/2003 :
2. : value of `70,000/- as claimed by her. The fact that the appellant had 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage has been spoken to by herself as PW1 and PWs 2 and 3 also. On the basis of the above evidence, Family Court concluded that she had 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments. However, in so far as the question whether the ornaments were entrusted to the respondents is concerned, while the appellant and the witnesses contended that the ornaments were entrusted to respondents 1 to 3, it is seen that their testimony to that effect stood discredited by Ext.B3, the certified copy of the deposition of PW1 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perambra in CC No.179/97 in which she was the complainant. In that case, in her deposition, she did not have a case that she had entrusted the ornaments to anyone of the respondents. On the other hand, she admitted in her deposition that she had kept the ornaments in the chest of a table and did not see the respondents taking the ornaments from the chest. However, since according to her, ornaments were kept in the chest, she presumed that it was taken by respondents 1 to 3.
5. As against the above, in the present OP, which was filed subsequently, she improved her version and contended that Mat.Appeal No.4/2003 :
3. : the ornaments were entrusted to respondents 1 to 3. It was in view of the contradiction in her own stand both before the Family Court and before the Judicial First Cass Magistrate Court that the Family Court held her evidence unreliable and it was on that count, Family Court declined to accept her case.
6. However, the respondents themselves had admitted that they had taken two bangles. Even according to them, the weight of these bangles were 7 grams each. The appellant herself quantified the value of 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments adopting `3,500/- as the value per sovereign. It was on that basis that the Family Court quantified the value of 14 grams at `6,124/-. Therefore, in our view, the conclusion of the Family Court declining to accept the case of the appellant for return of 20 sovereigns and the decree passed by the Family Court directing payment of `6,124/- does not suffer from any illegality.
7. The second issue that arises for consideration is the tenability of the claim of the appellant for return of `12,500/- paid to the first respondent. In so far as this claim of the appellant is concerned, as is seen from paragraph 13 of the judgment of the Family Court itself, the version given by PWs 1, 2 and 3 were Mat.Appeal No.4/2003 :
4. : contradictory not only in regard to the manner of payment but also regarding the persons to whom the amount was entrusted. The appellant has no case that the Family Court has not correctly stated anything about the evidence in the order. If that be so, on the evidence available, the Family Court could not have accepted this claim also. The result of the discussion is that the order of the Family Court does not suffer from any illegality calling for its interference. Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge Sd/- P.D.RAJAN, Judge Rp //True Copy// PA TO JUDGE