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.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. Sudha, J.

These appeals under section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 have been filed against the order dated 11/07/2019 in O.P.No.135/2016 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram. O.P.No.135/2016 was filed by the petitioner/wife for return of gold ornaments and money alleged to have been given to the respondent/husband at the time of the marriage. Mat.Appeal No.976/2019 has been filed by the husband and Mat.Appeal No.387/2022, by the wife. The parties in these appeals will be referred to as described in O.P.No.135/2016.

2. There are four petitioners in O.P.No.135/2016. The first petitioner is the wife of the respondent and petitioners 2 to 4, their children. The marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 14/07/1999 as per the rites and customs of the community to which they belong. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was given 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and an amount of Rs.1 lakh which has been misappropriated by the respondent. The petitioner was subjected to cruelty by the respondent and his family at the matrimonial home. The respondent/husband took the petitioner to her house for delivery, thereafter, never turned up to maintain the petitioners or to meet their daily expenses. Though attempts were made to settle the matter between the parties, the husband was not prepared for any sort of settlement. As the respondent is not maintaining the petitioners, maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month for the first petitioner and Rs.4,000/- each for petitioners 2 to 4 was claimed. An amount of Rs.3,91,000/- was claimed towards arrears of past maintenance from 04/04/2014 to 02/04/2016. The petitioner prayed that the respondent be directed to return gold ornaments weighing 140.60 grams or its value of Rs.3,20,000/-.

3. The respondent/husband denied the allegations of the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner is his maternal aunt's daughter. It was his second marriage. The petitioner and her family are financially very poor and hence there was never any demand for money or gold as dowry. The petitioner did not have any gold ornaments and so no gold ornaments had been entrusted to the respondent.

4. On completion of the pleadings of the parties, O.P.No.135/2016 was tried along with three other cases, namely, O.P.No.78/2016; O.P.No.315/2016 and M.C.No.74/2016. O.P.No.78/2016 was filed by the husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights. O.P.No.315/2016 was also filed by the husband seeking custody of the children. M.C.No.74/2016 was filed by the wife and children seeking future maintenance from the respondent. O.P.No.78/2016 was taken as the leading case in which evidence was recorded. The respondent/husband has been examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 to P2 were marked on his side. On behalf of the petitioners, RW1 to RW3 were examined and Ext.B1 series receipts were marked. The trial court on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, by the impugned order allowed O.P.No.78/2016 directing the petitioner to cohabit with the respondent/husband. O.P.No.135/2016 was allowed directing the respondent/husband to return gold ornaments weighing 140.60 grams or its value of Rs.3,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of order till realisaiton. The respondent has also been directed to return the amount of Rs.2 lakhs with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of order. As far as maintenance is concerned, the respondent has been directed to pay past maintenance for 23 months at the rate of Rs.3,000/- to the second petitioner; Rs.2,000/- to the third petitioner and Rs.1,500/- to the fourth petitioner amounting to Rs.1,49,500/-. M.C.No.74/2016 has also been allowed in part directing the respondent to pay a monthly maintenance allowance at the aforesaid rates from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the order in O.P.No.135/2016, the petitioner/wife as well as the respondent/husband have come up in app