Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN THURSDAY, THE23D DAY OF JANUARY20143RD MAGHA, 1935 Mat.Appeal.No. 141 of 2005 ( ) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
& DECREE IN OP8752003 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA DATED3010-2004 --------------- APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS : ----------------------------------------------- 1. M.C.PAUL, AGED67YEARS, 36 SPARTEN NAGAR, MOGAPPAIR, CHENNAI -50 TAMIL NADU.
2. MANOJ @ JACOB PAUL, S/O.M.C.PAUL, AGED34YEARS, 36 SPARTEN NAGAR, MOGAPPAIR CHENNAI -50, TAMIL NADU.
3. MARY PAUL, W/O.M.C. PAUL, AGED62YEARS, 36 SPARTEN ANGAR, MOGAPPAIR, CHENNAI -50 TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.JAIJI ITTEN RESPONDENT/PETITIOENR : ------------------------------------------ SUNNU JACOB, W/O.MANOJ PAUL @ JACOB PAUL, AGED32YEARS, THADIYIL HOUSE KUMBLAMTHANAM, THEODICAL P.O., THIRUVALLA TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2301-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- Mat.Appeal.No. 141 of 2005 ( ) APPENDIX APPELLANTS' ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE AI : COPY OF THE ORDER
DATED267-2005 IN OP8752003 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn ANTONY DOMINIC & P.D.RAJAN, JJ ......................................... Mat Appeal No.141 of 2005 ......................................... Dated 23rd January, 2014 JUDGMENT
ANTONY DOMINIC, J This appeal is filed by the respondent in O.P.No.875 of 2003 on the file of Family Court, Tiruvalla. The said OP was filed by the respondent herein, the wife of the second appellant, whose parents are appellants 1 and 2. The OP was filed by the respondent claiming value of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.5,00,000/-.
2. By the impugned order, Family Court directed return of value of 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.3,00,000/-. It is this judgment, which is challenged by the appellants, who were respondents before the Family Court.
3. The first claim allowed by the Family Court is return of Rs.3,00,000/- claimed by the respondent. The case of the respondent was that on the date of betrothal, appellant and their relatives visited the house of a close relative of the appellant on which occasion, respondent's father paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. However, since appellants were residents of Chennai and as it was difficult for them to carry the amount in train, they returned the money with a request Ma 141/2005 2 to get them demand drafts. Accordingly, two demand drafts of Rs.1,50,000/- each were obtained by the respondent's father in the name of the second appellant and the respondent. These demand drafts were handed over to the first appellant in the presence of others on 18.8.1997. According to the respondent, since the marital relationship failed, appellants were liable to return this Rs.3,00,000/- to her. However, the case set up by the appellants was that they were given only one draft for Rs.1,50,000/- and that the same was given towards pocket money and also to meet the expenses in connection with the marriage and according to him, after meeting the expenses, the balance amount was entrusted to the respondent who in turn handed it over to the father, who totally denied the receipt of the second demand draft drawn in the name of the respondent.
4. The evidence before the Family Court and particularly, Ext.A1 showed that two demand drafts were purchased by the respondent's father from South Indian Bank, among which the receipt of one was admitted by the appellants themselves. In so far as this demand draft is concerned, there is no evidence whatsoever to show that this was given either towards pocket Ma 141/2005 3 money or for meeting the expenses in connection with the marriage. Instead, evidence suggested that this represented a part of the patrimoney agreed to be paid by the respondent's father.
5. In so far as the second demand draft drawn in the name of the wife is concerned, the fact that the demand draft was purchased from the bank was evidenced by Ext.A2 apart from the oral evidence of the parties. There is no evidence whatsoever before the Family Court to disbelieve the case of the respondent wife that she had endorsed the demand draft in favour of the second appellant and that it was he who utilized the amount.
6. On the other hand, if as contended by the appellants, demand draft was not given and if in fact, the draft was utilized by the respondent herself, it could have been done only through a bank and it would have been possible for the appellants to prove that contention by producing evidence, both oral and documentary. There was no such evidence in that behalf. It was in such circumstances that Family Court upheld the monetary claim of the respondent to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/- covered by both the demand drafts. Ma 141/2005 4 7. Then what remains is the claim of the respondent for return of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments. By the impugned judgment, Family Court upheld the claim for return of value of 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the rate she claimed. The fact that she was wearing gold ornaments at the time of her marriage has been spoken to by PW1, respondent and her neighbour who was examined as PW3. Ext.A3 and A4 are marriage photographs, the genuineness of which is also not disputed by the appellants. These photographs show that the wife was wearing substantial quantity of gold ornaments. The evidence indicates that the gold ornaments in question were purchased from Bhima Jewellery, Alappuzha. In the pleadings, the appellants did not dispute the quantity of gold ornaments claimed by the wife nor did they deny the claim of the wife that she was wearing 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It was taking note of such averments, that the Family Court accepted the case of the respondent that she was wearing 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments.
8. In so far as the issue of entrustment of gold ornaments and its mis-appropriation by the appellants are concerned, the evidence before the Family Court shows that when the couple Ma 141/2005 5 returned to Chennai after marriage, the entire gold ornaments were taken by the wife for safety purpose, which was entrusted to the mother in law of the third appellant. There is no evidence whatsoever indicating that the gold was returned to the wife. This therefore means that the respondent succeeded in proving the entrustment also. In so far as the quantity of gold which is entrusted is concerned, the evidence of respondent herself indicates that she is in possession of 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It was taking note of such evidence that Family Court quantified the value of 40 sovereigns as the quantity which the appellants are liable to pay. We do not find any illegality in the conclusions of the Family Court and therefore, the judgment does not deserve to be interfered. Appeal therefore fails. It is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE P.D.RAJAN, JUDGE lgk