The court upheld the Family Court's decree for 'Acharam' and gold ornaments while modifying the interest rate from 12% to 6%, emphasizing the credibility of witness testimony.

JUDGMENT :

Sathish Ninan, J.

The original petition filed by the wife against the husband and mother-in-law, was decreed against the husband in part, by the Family Court. Challenging the same, the husband is in appeal.

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 15.02.2004. The claim in the original petition is for an amount of Rs.3,04,000/-. The claim is under various heads as under:-

3. According to the petitioner-wife, at the time of marriage an amount of Rs.50,000/- was entrusted to the husband as “Aacharam”. So also, the petitioner was provided with 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments. That apart, as was required by the husband, an extent of 8 cents of property was settled by the petitioner's father in her name. The petitioner was also provided with an almirah worth Rs.3,000/-. An amount of Rs.75,000/- was spent towards marriage expenses. A child was born in the wedlock. The petitioner's relatives presented gold ornaments weighing 2 sovereigns to the child. The petitioner alleges that the gold and money were misappropriated by the respondents-husband and his mother. It is accordingly that the original petition was filed, for money.

4. The respondents in their objections denied the claim of payment of 'Aacharam'. It was also contended that the petitioner did not have any gold ornaments with her. The allegation that 8 cents of property was settled in the name of the petitioner by her father as was demanded by the husband, was also denied. The alleged misappropriation of money and gold was also denied.

5. The Family Court upheld the petitioner's claim for 'Aacharam', the value of 20 sovereigns of gold, and the Almirah. The claims with regard to marriage expenses and value of ornaments gifted to the child were negatived. So also, the decree was confined against the husband. There is no appeal by the petitioner-wife.

6. In spite of service of notice on the respondent-wife there is no appearance.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant took us exhaustively through the entire evidence on record. The learned counsel would submit that there are contradictions in the evidence of the petitioner as PW1 and the evidence of PW3 who is the owner of the jewellery shop which is crucial and was overlooked by the Family Court. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, while the petitioner-wife claims that 20 sovereigns was purchased from the shop of PW3, according to PW3 only 14 sovereigns of gold was purchased from him. Moreover, there is no document evidencing such purchase. Though PW1 would claim that no photograph or video recording of the marriage was taken, PW3 would depose otherwise. Such photographs could have been produced by the petitioner to prove that she was adorned with any gold ornaments at the time of marriage. Learned counsel would also submit that, going by the details of the gold ornaments as deposed by PW1, the total quantity is only approximately 18 sovereigns. This would indicate that the very claim that she had 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments is false. He also argued that, though it is stated in the original petition that the respondents had sold the gold ornaments of the petitioner, as PW1 she would depose that only half the quantity was sold and the remaining half was pledged. Learned counsel would further submit that PW1 has admitted that after the parties started residing separately the petitioner constructed a house in her property. The source for the same remains undisclosed; it could only be by sale of the gold ornaments. Though “Acharam