BASANT, J.

Is a Christian husband in this State liable to maintain his wife? Can such obligation if any be enforced through the Family (Civil) Court? Does the dictum in Cheria Varkey v. Ouseph Thresia, (1955 K.L.T.429) deserve reconsideration? These questions inter alia are raised by the learned counsel Shri Philip Mathew forcefully in this appeal.

2. Rival contestants have come up before us with these appeals. Proceedings were initiated by the wife and minor child, aged 28 years and 7 years respectively on the date of the application, claiming return of money, ornaments and maintenance from their husband/father and his father. The parties are referred to in this judgment as the claimants and the respondents respectively.

3. The marriage between the spouses admittedly took place on 21-8-1994. This proceedings was initiated in 2001. It was initiated before the Sub Court, Thiruvalla and the same was later transferred to the Family Court, Thiruvalla after its constitution. During the pendency of the appeal, an ex parte decree for divorce was obtained by the respondent-husband.

4. The claimants asserted that an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was handed over at the time of betrothal to the husband and his father. This was handed over as the monetary equivalent of the share of the claimant-wife in her parental property. At the time of marriage, she had ornaments weighing 40 sovereigns. The husband and his parents were settled at Bhopal. She was taken to Bhopal. She was permitted to wear four sovereigns of gold ornaments. The remaining 36 sovereigns of gold ornaments were retained by the husband and his father. She was unceremoniously sent back to her parental home and at that time she was wearing only four sovereigns of gold ornaments. The remaining 36 sovereigns of gold ornaments were allegedly retained by the husband. The claimants were not paid any maintenance by the respondent-husband. They claimed past and future maintenance from the husband/father.

5. The claim was resisted. The husband contended that only an amount of Rs.25,000/-was paid as the share of parental property of the wife. He further contended that the ornaments were not retained by him as alleged. He disputed the claim for maintenance at the rate of Rs.1500/-per mensem. He had a contention that the amount of Rs.25,000/- paid as the parental share had been utilised and eaten up for celebration of the marriage. He disputed his liability to pay maintenance to the claimants. According to him, he, therefore, was not liable to return any amount or ornaments.

6. The parties went to trial on these contentions. The claimant-wife examined herself as PW1, her paternal uncle as PW2 and maternal uncle as PW3. On her side Ext.A1 wedding invitation was marked. On the side of the respondent-husband, he examined himself as RW1. Vicar of the church where the marriage was performed was examined as RW2. Exts.X1 to X3 were marked. Vicar was examined and these documents were marked only to show that Pasaram, a contribution in the parental property, was paid to the church. Reckoning the share of parental property to be 25,000/-, 7% of the said amount was paid as Pasaram. Exts.B1 to B10 were also marked on the side of the respondents.

7. The court below on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that only an amount of Rs.25,000/-had been paid to the husband as the share in the parental property. The husband was directed to return that amount along with interest at 6% per annum. The court further found that 36 sovereigns of gold ornaments were retained by the husband. There was direction to return the said gold ornaments or Rs.1,26,000/- which was held to be the monetary equivalent of the said gold ornaments. Past maintenance for a period of three years and future maintenance for the wife and child were ordered at the rate of Rs.1500/- each per mensem. It was directed that future maintenance of the wife shall be payable only till the date of divorce.