The Family Court's findings on the wife's claims for gold, money, and maintenance were upheld, emphasizing the credibility of her testimony and the evidence of misappropriation by the husband.

JUDGMENT :

Sathish Ninan, J.

This appeal is by the husband, challenging the judgment in the Original Petition filed by the wife seeking recovery of gold, money and for maintenance.

2. Pending the appeal, the appellant-husband died. His parents, children and his second wife are impleaded as the additional appellants. The father is also now no more.

3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23.12.1993. According to the wife, in connection with the marriage she was provided with 23 sovereigns of gold ornaments and an amount of Rs. 1 lakh as 'Acharam'. In connection with the marriage, she was also gifted with 40 cents of immovable property. The wife alleges that she was compelled by the husband to sell the property and that the entire gold and money were misappropriated by him. The original petition was filed for recovery of the same. There is also a prayer for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month.

4. The husband denied the averments in the original petition. It was claimed that the wife had only 18 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The allegation of misappropriation, compulsion for sale of property etc. were denied.

5. The Family Court upheld the claim for gold and money. The husband was also directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month.

6. We have heard the learned counsel Sri.Liju M.P. on behalf of the appellants and Sri. Shammy Vijayan the learned counsel for the respondent.

7. The fact that wife had gold ornaments at the time of marriage is not disputed. The dispute is regarding the quantum. Further the contention is that the ornaments are with the wife herself. With regard to the quantum of gold ornaments, the wife claimed it to be 23 sovereigns while the husband contended that it was only 18 sovereigns. While the husband was cross- examined, it was suggested to him that the 23 sovereigns of gold ornaments were pledged and sold away by him. His reply was that the gold ornaments are in the custody of the petitioner. The quantum was not denied. Admittedly the wife's father is employed in Gulf countries and had good financial capacity. Admittedly, 40 cents of property was gifted to the daughter at the time of marriage. Considering such financial capacity and the entire circumstances, the Family Court has found that it is probable that the petitioner’s claim that she had 23 sovereigns of gold ornaments is true. We find no reason to differ from the said conclusion.

8. It is the case of the husband that, out of the gold ornaments of the wife five sovereigns were stolen when the elder son was admitted at the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. However, there is no evidence to prove such incident. The husband was not able to state as to when such incident occurred. The contention was rightly negatived by the Family Court.

9. It is not in dispute that the wife was gifted with 40 cents of property in connection with the marriage by her mother under Ext.A11 Settlement Deed. According to her, the husband compelled her to sell the property, and accordingly it was sold for Rs. 1,50,000/-. The sale was on 30.11.1998 under Ext.A12 Sale Deed. The amount was deposited in a fixed deposit with the State Bank of Travancore, Sreekariyam Branch on 02.12.1998. However, the husband compelled her to withdraw the amount on 26.07.1999 and the amounts were misappropriated by him. The fact that the wife was gifted with property evidenced by Ext.A11 and the sale of the same is evidenced by Ext.A12. The deposit made with the Bank is evidenced by Ext.A17. The contention of the appellant is that the amounts were caused to be withdrawn by her to enable the husband to start a two wheeler spare parts shop. At the same time, the husband would contend that the petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn the amount for helping her brother. There is no suggestion as to why the petitioner was required to help her brother or even that the petitioner's brother was in need of money. In the circumstances, the Family Court was right in its conclusi