Back
ANU SIVARAMAN, C. PRATHEEP KUMAR
Joseph A. U, S/o. Ulahannan A. J. – Appellant
Versus
Princy P. J, D/o. John – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
C. Pratheep Kumar, J.
This appeal is filed by the respondent in O.P. No.385 of 2018 on the file of Family Court, Kalpetta, against the judgment dated 5.1.2022, directing him to pay a sum of Rs.3,35,564/-with interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the petitioner.
2. According to the respondent, the appellant married her on 16.3.2016 as per the provisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954. It was the second marriage of the appellant and the third marriage of the respondent. Two weeks after the marriage, the respondent returned to Canada to continue her overseas employment. Thereafter she had arranged a student Visa to the appellant in Vancouver Island University. A sum of Rs.22 Lakhs was required for the completion of the Masters Degree of the appellant. The appellant arranged only a sum of Rs.7 Lakhs by availing a loan from Syndicate Bank, Mananthavady Branch and balance amount of Rs.15 Lakhs and flight charges of Rs.1,85,000/-was met by the respondent. Accordingly, the appellant went to Canada in August, 2016 and they lived together there for about three weeks.
3. Subsequently, the appellant joined the University to complete his education. Thereafter the marital relationship be
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain disputes between parties to a void marriage with respect to their property, as per the provisio....
A marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act requires both parties to be Hindus unless conducted under the Special Marriage Act, affecting claims of cohabitation or property.
The court upheld the claimant’s right to return of gold ornaments based on credible evidence despite challenges regarding the authenticity of the items involved.
The court upheld the Family Court's dismissal of the wife's claim for return of gold and money due to insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in her assertions.
Liability for misappropriated assets in matrimonial disputes extends to all parties involved in custody, barring unchallenged defenses.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's findings regarding the return of gold ornaments and maintenance, affirming the decision was based on credible evidence without infirmity.
The court upheld the principle of equitable distribution of marital property including gold ornaments, reflecting the non-application of strict evidence rules in family court standards.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
