Dr.Manga, Represented by the Power of Attorney Holder Vs. Thomas Perunneparambil - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1013983
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnJul-01-2013
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
AppellantDr.Manga, Represented by the Power of Attorney Holder
RespondentThomas Perunneparambil
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice antony dominic & the honourable mr. justice p.d.rajan monday,the 1st day of july 2013 10th ashadha, 1935 mat.appeal.no. 404 of 2013 (e) ------------------------------ against the order/judgment in op 219/2011 of family court, kottayam at ettumanoor dated 11 01-2013 appellant/petitioner: -------------------------------------- dr.manga, perunneparambil, lehrbofersir-263 457 hanan, germany perunneprambil, w/o thomas, perunneprambil house vakkad p.o., kattampak village, vaikom taluk represented by the power of attorney holder benny pulinthanathu s/o. john pulinthanathu aged 4 years manjhalampuram kelakam p.o. by advs.smt.sumathy dandapani (sr.) sri.millu dandapani respondent/respondent: ------------------------------------------- thomas perunneparambil, aged 6 years s/o joseph, perunneparambil house, vakkad p.o. kattampak village, vaikom taluk kottayam district-686 636. this matrimonial appeal having come up for admission on 01-07- 2013, the court on the same day delivered the following: antony dominic & p.d.rajan, jj.======================== mat. appeal no. 404 of 201.======================= dated this the 1st day of july, 2013 judgment antony dominic, j.this appeal arises out of the judgment of the family court, kottayam at ettumanoor in op no.219/11. the op was filed by the appellant herein seeking return of `5,00,000/- and 78.5 sovereigns of gold which was allegedly given to the respondent at the time of her marriage. this claim was rejected in total by the family court. it is aggrieved by this judgment, the appeal has been filed.2. in so far as the claim for return of `5,00,000/- is concerned, it has been held by the family court in para 10 of the judgment that "no scrap of paper is there to show payment of `5,00,000/- to the respondent from the house of the petitioner". the appellant has no case that any documentary evidence in this behalf was produced. on the other hand, argument addressed was mainly on the basis that the appellant's father was a flourishing agriculturist who was an agricultural income tax assessee and had the capacity to make payment. mat.appeal no.404/13 :2. :3. in our view, even if it is assumed that the appellant's father was a resourceful person and an agricultural income tax assessee, that does not automatically lead to the inference that at the time of her marriage with the respondent, he was given `5,00,000/- as claimed. in other words, there was total failure on the part of the appellant in producing any evidence substantiating her claim.4. now coming to the claim that 78.5 sovereigns of gold were given, here again, absolutely no evidence was produced to substantiate this contention. in such circumstances, this finding of the family court also cannot be said to be illegal.5. for the aforesaid reasons, in the absence of any evidence produced by the appellant substantiating her case of having paid `5,00,000/- and given 78.5 sovereigns of gold at the time of her marriage, we are unable to find any illegality in the judgment of the family court justifying interference in an appeal. appeal is dismissed. sd/- antony dominic, judge sd/- p.d.rajan, judge rp //true copy// pa to judge
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN MONDAY,THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2013 10TH ASHADHA, 1935 Mat.Appeal.No. 404 of 2013 (E) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 219/2011 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR DATED 11 01-2013 APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- DR.MANGA, PERUNNEPARAMBIL, LEHRBOFERSIR-263 457 HANAN, GERMANY PERUNNEPRAMBIL, W/O THOMAS, PERUNNEPRAMBIL HOUSE VAKKAD P.O., KATTAMPAK VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BENNY PULINTHANATHU S/O. JOHN PULINTHANATHU AGED 4 YEARS MANJHALAMPURAM KELAKAM P.O. BY ADVS.SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- THOMAS PERUNNEPARAMBIL, AGED 6 YEARS S/O JOSEPH, PERUNNEPARAMBIL HOUSE, VAKKAD P.O. KATTAMPAK VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 636. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-07- 2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & P.D.RAJAN, JJ.

======================== Mat. Appeal No. 404 OF 201.======================= Dated this the 1st day of July, 2013 JUDGMENT

Antony Dominic, J.

This appeal arises out of the judgment of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor in OP No.219/11. The OP was filed by the appellant herein seeking return of `5,00,000/- and 78.5 sovereigns of gold which was allegedly given to the respondent at the time of her marriage. This claim was rejected in total by the Family Court. It is aggrieved by this judgment, the appeal has been filed.

2. In so far as the claim for return of `5,00,000/- is concerned, it has been held by the Family Court in para 10 of the judgment that "no scrap of paper is there to show payment of `5,00,000/- to the respondent from the house of the petitioner". The appellant has no case that any documentary evidence in this behalf was produced. On the other hand, argument addressed was mainly on the basis that the appellant's father was a flourishing agriculturist who was an Agricultural Income Tax Assessee and had the capacity to make payment. Mat.Appeal No.404/13 :

2. :

3. In our view, even if it is assumed that the appellant's father was a resourceful person and an Agricultural Income Tax Assessee, that does not automatically lead to the inference that at the time of her marriage with the respondent, he was given `5,00,000/- as claimed. In other words, there was total failure on the part of the appellant in producing any evidence substantiating her claim.

4. Now coming to the claim that 78.5 sovereigns of gold were given, here again, absolutely no evidence was produced to substantiate this contention. In such circumstances, this finding of the Family Court also cannot be said to be illegal.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, in the absence of any evidence produced by the appellant substantiating her case of having paid `5,00,000/- and given 78.5 sovereigns of gold at the time of her marriage, we are unable to find any illegality in the judgment of the Family Court justifying interference in an appeal. Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge Sd/- P.D.RAJAN, Judge Rp //True Copy// PA TO JUDGE