K. Harilal, J.

The appellants are respondents 2 and 3 in O.P No.1071/2008 of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. They are the father and mother of the second respondent. The second respondent, who is the husband of the first respondent herein. The aforesaid original petition was filed by the first respondent herein, seeking a decree for realization of Rs.1,50,000/-and 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value from the second respondent and appellants herein. The facts of the case can be summarised as follows: The parties are referred to as in the original petition.

The petitioner is the wife of the first respondent and respondents 2 and 3 are the father and the mother of the first respondent. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnised on 18.12.2005 in accordance with the Mohammedan Law. An amount of Rs.1,50,000/-and 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given as share of the petitioner to the respondents by the father of the petitioner. But, after the marriage, the respondents have appropriated the amount and 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments for their needs without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner. The first respondent was set ex parte and the respondents 2 and 3 filed objection denying the averments in the petition. According to them, the suit against them was filed in collusion with the first respondent. No amount or gold ornaments had been entrusted with the respondents 2 and 3. But Rs.50,000/-was entrusted with the first respondent and the same has not been entrusted with them as alleged in the original petition.

The allegation that the petitioner had 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage is not true. The petitioner was taken to her house for delivery and at that time she was wearing her entire gold ornaments.

2. On the aforesaid pleadings, both parties adduced evidence which consists of oral testimony of PWs. 1 to 3 and RWs. 1 to 4 and documentary evidence Exts. A1 to A5 and B1 were marked.

3. On appraisal of the aforesaid evidence, the Family Court passed the impugned judgment granting a decree to realise Rs.50,000/-with 9% interest and 24 sovereigns of gold ornaments or Rs.2,50,000/-as its value with 9% interest from the respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner was also allowed to realise a cost of Rs.2,000/-from the respondents. The legality and correctness of the findings whereby the Family Court passed the impugned judgment against the appellants/ respondents 2 and 3 are assailed in this appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/respondents 2 and 3 and the learned counsel for the first respondent/petitioner.

5. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants/respondents 2 and 3 is that absolutely there is no evidence to prove the entrustment of money or gold ornaments with the appellants, who are the parents of the second respondent/first respondent, in connection with the marriage of the first respondent in the original petition. But, the Family Court miserably failed to evaluate the evidence correctly; had the Family Court evaluated the evidence in its correct perspective, the respondents 2 and 3 could have been exonerated from the liability. It is also contended that there is no specific pleadings with respect to entrustment of money or gold ornaments with them in connection with the marriage. But, the Family Court failed to appreciate the pleadings and evidence in its correct perspective and granted a decree for realising the money and gold ornaments from the appellants also.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent/petitioner advanced arguments to justify the findings whereby the appellants also were held liable to return the money and gold ornaments to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the first respondent invited our attention to paragraph 4 of the petition and contended that there are sufficient pleadings to constitute entrustment with the appellants/respondents 2 a