The appellate review upheld the Family Court's decision to return marital assets based on credible testimony and evidence, reinforcing the legal principles guiding asset return in marital disputes.

JUDGMENT

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

The respondent in O.P.No.205 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur, is the appellant. The respondent has filed that original petition seeking a decree of return of gold ornaments, cloths, certificates, etc. The Family Court as per the judgment dated 31.08.2016 decreed the original petition as follows:

“(i) The respondent is directed to return A schedule gold ornaments (41 grams) within a period of one month from today to the petitioner. On his failure, he shall pay the value of the gold ornaments at the rate of Rs.23,000/- per sovereign with 6% interest from the date of the order till realisation.

(ii) The respondent is directed to return B schedule, the sarees and dresses of the petitioner, within a period of one month from today. On his failure, he shall pay Rs.44,500/- with 6%

interest from the date of the order till realisation.

(iii) The respondent is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner towards delivery expenses with 6% interest from the date of the order till realisation.

(iv) The respondent is directed to return the wedding saree, the thali chain, the voters identity card and the birth certificate of the child to the petitioner within a period of one month from today.”

The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act , 1984 assailing the said judgment and decree.

2. On 30.11.2016 the appeal was admitted. As per the order in I.A.No.4195 of 2016 execution of the decree was stayed on the condition of furnishing security for the decreed amount to the satisfaction of the Family Court, Thrissur. Though the parties were referred for mediation, that attempt failed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. The respondent placing reliance on her oral testimony and Ext.A2 series photographs, attempted to prove her case. She deposed as PW1. The appellant deposed in court as RW1 controverting the claims of the respondent. The appellant contended that the respondent did not have gold ornaments of 25 sovereigns as she claimed. Whereas, the ornaments worn by the respondent in Ext.A2 photographs are imitation ornaments. The appellant also attempted to show the respondent's allegations regarding retention of petition B and C schedule articles and certificates by him untrue

5. The case of the respondent was that at the time of her marriage, she had 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Her marital relationship with the appellant estranged mainly due to the paranoia about the appellant and also the consequential skirmishes developed between them. The appellant even disputed the paternity of their child. Occurrence of disharmony in the marital relationship between the appellant and the respondent is quite evident from the rival contentions itself. No much enquiry is required in that respect. Those facts, however, have no relevance in this case. Similarly, the dispute raised by the appellant regarding paternity of the child was proved to be false on the basis of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.A1, report of DNA examination. Blood samples of the appellant and the child was subjected to DNA examination. In such examination, it was found that the appellant was the biological father of the child of the respondent. That fact also does not have much relevance while answering the issue involved in this case.

6. PW1 deposed in court that excluding 41 grams of gold ornaments, she could take along whole of her gold ornaments with her while leaving the matrimonial home. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve that version. Similar is her version regarding petition B and c schedule articles. She had stated meticulously before the court the details of her articles retained in the custody of the appellant. The Family Court, after detailed consideration, found the case of the respondent to be true. We find no reason to interfere with that finding. Therefore, we dismiss with appeal without any order as to costs.