Point of Law:Family Law – Cruelty and harassment - Law of Tort is founded on the principle that every injury must have a remedy. One of the remedy available for the victim for the injury sustained by him/her on account of the wrongful act on the part of the tortfeasor is damages. It is settled that in the matter of assessing damages and determining the quantum of compensation, the court has to depend largely on peculiar features of the case bordering conjectures or surmises. Section 12 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down that in suits in which damages are claimed, any fact which will enable the court to determine the amount of damages which ought to be awarded is relevant.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J.

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, "the Act") against the judgment of the Family Court, Ernakulam in O.P.No.683 of 2012 dated 15.10.2016.

2. The first appellant and the respondent are divorced spouses. Their marriage took place on 26.01.2014 as per the Hindu rites. Two children were born out of the wedlock. The respondent instituted O.P.No.2425 of 2011 before the court below against the first appellant and obtained a decree of dissolution of marriage which has become final. The second appellant is the mother of the first appellant. The original petition (O.P.No.683 of 2012) was instituted by the respondent against the appellants for return of gold ornaments, household articles, cash as well as for damages. It is the case of the respondent that at the time of marriage her parents had given her 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs. 3,00,000/-in cash which was later on taken away and misappropriated by the appellants. It is further alleged that immediately after the marriage, the respondent had brought furniture and household articles worth Rs. 60,000/-from her house to the house of the appellants and in the year 2007, the father of the respondent had given furniture and household articles worth Rs. 40,000/-to the first appellant when they shifted to a rented house. According to the respondent, even after divorce, those furniture and household articles worth Rs. 1,00,000/-were with the appellants. It is also alleged that in view of the cruel conduct and harassment by the appellants, the respondent was put to much physical harm, mental pain and sufferings. The original petition has been filed for return of gold ornaments, household articles and money mentioned above as well as for damages. The total claim made was for Rs. 25,96,730/-.

3. In the objection statement filed by the appellants, they denied the case set up by the respondent that gold ornaments, furniture and household articles and cash were entrusted to them and they misappropriated it. It is contended that only 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to the respondent at the time of marriage and those were kept by the respondent herself in safe custody at her house. The allegation in the original petition that the respondent is entitled to damages for the alleged cruelty meted out to her by the appellants has also been denied. The appellants sought for the dismissal of the original petition.

4. The respondent had preferred O.P.No.2425 of 2011 against the first appellant for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The said original petition was tried along with O.P.No.683 of 2012. PWs 1 to 5 were examined on the side of the respondent and Exts.A1 to A20 were marked. RW1 was examined on the side of the appellants. Ext.X1 was marked as Court exhibit. After trial, the court below allowed both the original petitions. A decree of dissolution of marriage was granted in O.P.No.2425/2011. A decree for Rs. 25,00,000/-was granted in O.P.No.683/2012. No appeal has been preferred against the decree in O.P.No.2425/2011 and, thus, it has become final. The decree and judgment in O.P.No.683/2012 is under challenge in this appeal.

5. We have heard Shri Mahesh V. Menon, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Biju P.N., the learned counsel for the respondent.

6. The claims of the respondent are under the following four heads: (i) Claim for return of gold ornaments or its value, (ii) Claim for return of money with interest, (iii) Claim for return of furniture and household articles or its value, (iv) Claim for damages. We will discuss each claim one by one.

7. Claim (i): The definite case of the respondent in the pleadings is that at the time of marriage, her parents and family members gave her 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments, that after four days of marriage when she went to the matrimonial home she carried with her those gold ornaments and on the fifth day, the second appellant w