Important points:
There should be specific pleadings and sufficient evidence to prove entrustment of gold ornaments and misappropriation.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. DIAS, J.

1. The appellant is the respondent in O.P. No. 21/2012 of the Family Court, Thalassery. The petitioner in the original petition is the respondent in this Mat. Appeal.

2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 9.4.2014 passed by the Family Court directing him to return six sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value as on the date of return of the ornaments to the respondent. The parties are for the sake of convenience referred to as “appellant” and “respondent” as per the status in this appeal.

3. The respondent filed the original petition, inter-alia, pleading that her marriage with the appellant was solemnised on 19.5.2010, as per the religious rites and customs of their community. Even though, in the initial days, they had a harmonious relationship, subsequently, the appellant changed his behaviour, and he became a habitual drunkard.

4. The respondent further averred that her parents had given her 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. Within two months after the marriage, the appellant pledged a portion of her gold ornaments in a bank, for the purpose of travelling abroad. The appellant worked in Qatar for over a year. He used to phone and abuse her in vituperative language, without any reason. Her in-laws neglected and humiliated her for trivial reasons.

5. The respondent also averred that, she joined a T.T.C. Course in a nearby college. After a year, the appellant returned to India. The appellant again took away her remaining gold ornaments and pledged the same as he wanted to join a better job. He even took away her thali. Due to the constant ill-treatment and cruelty that was meted out on her by the appellant, she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home. Thus, the respondent filed the original petition against the appellant, seeking recovery of the 13 sovereigns of her gold ornaments.

6. The appellant filed a written objection, inter-alia, denying the assertion that he misappropriated the respondent's gold ornaments. According to him, whatever gold ornaments the respondent had with her, she took it with her when she deserted the appellant. He averred that he had purchased a gold chain for the respondent and met to her entire education expenses. He also purchased household articles for the respondent and gave her father Rs. 20,000/- and used to maintain the respondent's parents.

7. Along with O.P. No. 21/2012, the respondent also filed O.P. No. 1/2012, seeking a decree of divorce to dissolve her marriage with the appellant and M.C. No. 13/2012, seeking an order for maintenance.

8. The Family Court tried the above cases separately, but disposed the cases by the impugned common judgment.

9. In O.P. No. 21/2012, the respondent was examined as PW-1 and Ext.A1 was marked through her. The appellant was examined as RW-1. Ext.X1 series statement that was marked in O.P. No. 1/2012, was also considered in this case.

10. The Family Court after considering the pleadings, the oral testimony of the appellant (RW-1) and the respondent (PW-1) and Ext.A1 cash bill and Ext.X-1 series statement, partly allowed O.P. No. 21/2012, by directing the appellant to return six sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value thereof to the respondent. It is challenging the said judgment and decree, this Mat. Appeal is filed.

11. We have heard Advocate Bindumol Joseph, the learned counsel for the appellant and Advocate Cibi Thomas, the learned counsel for the respondent.

12. From the facts and circumstances of the case, the following points emerge for consideration:

(i) Whether the appellant has misappropriated the gold ornaments of the respondent?

(ii) Whether the Family Court was right in directing the appellant to return six sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value thereof to the respondent?

13. As the above points are intertwined, we consider them together.

14. This Court in Bhaskaran vs. Radha, 2019 (3) KHC 960, Abubakker Labba vs. Shameena, 2018 (3) KLT 196 and Shinu P.K. vs. Dhanya Madhavan, 2013 (2