A.M. Babu, J

1. Appellant is the ex-wife of the respondent. The former approached the family court with two claims. One, past and future maintenance. Two, return of 11 sovereigns of gold ornaments or Rs. 50,600/- as the value thereof and a few household articles. The family court refused one of the claims of the appellant and allowed the other claim partly.

2. The case of the appellant is briefly stated below : She and the respondent were married on 19.5.1996. They moved a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent. The same was allowed on 30.7.2004. The appellant had 16 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage. She brought to her matrimonial home the household articles shown in the B schedule to the petition. A chain weighing one sovereign was given to the respondent by the brother of the appellant at the time of the marriage. On compulsion, the appellant handed over her 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the respondent two months after the marriage. He pledged those ornaments and used the money for his personal needs. He is liable to return the said 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments and also the gold chain weighing one sovereign given to him by her brother. The respondent took the appellant to her house and left her there on 16.3.2000. He did not maintain her since then. She is entitled to Rs. 1500/- a month for her maintenance. She is entitled to it for three years before the date of the petition, besides her future entitlement.

3. The respondent admitted the marriage and divorce. The former raised the following contentions : The appellant was primarily responsible for the breakdown of the marital relationship. He did not take any ornament of hers. She left his house of her own. At that time she had taken all her ornaments except a chain and two bangles. He is ready to return those ornaments. The 'tali' chain weighing 2.5 sovereigns presented by the respondent is with the appellant. She is liable to return it. Among the articles shown in the B schedule, only one almirah was brought by the appellant. That one is not of the make Godrej. The appellant is not entitled to any amount as maintenance from the respondent. She is capable of maintaining herself. She is doing tailoring and embroidery works. She earns Rs. 5000/- a month. 4. Both sides adduced evidence before the family court. PWs 1 to 3 and RW1 were examined. Exts X1 to X6 were marked.

5. The family court passed a decree to the extent of directing the respondent to return to the appellant the almirah of hers kept in his house and also Rs. 40,250/- being the value of 8.75 sovereigns of gold ornaments with 15% interest. The other claims of the appellant were rejected.

6. The respondent did not file appeal against the decree he suffered. The appellant is in appeal since her claim for maintenance was refused and also since the family court denied decree to the extent of 2.25 sovereigns of gold ornaments.

7. Heard Smt. Sheeba Thomas and Sri. P.V. George, the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent respectively.

8. A few facts are admitted. The appellant was the wife of the respondent. Solemnization of their marriage was on 19.5.1996. They are hindus. On their joint motion a decree directing dissolution of marriage by mutual consent was granted by the family court. The date of divorce is 30.7.2004. The parties have been living separately since 16.3.2000.

9. The family court found that the appellant had 16 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage. It was also found that her 10 sovereigns of ornaments were taken from her and appropriated by the respondent. Another finding was that a chain of one sovereign was presented to the respondent by the brother of the appellant. These findings of the family court cannot be disturbed in the absence of an appeal or cross-objection by the respondent.

10. Of the claim for return of gold ornaments, the subject matter of the appeal is only 2.25 sovereigns. That is the weight of the 'tali' chain as