Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, SOPHY THOMAS, JJ
NATARAJAN – Appellant
Versus
SAROJAM – Respondent
CO 81 2020
Maintenance - Family Law - OP No.1243 of 2014 - The court analyzed claims for gold and money by the wife, emphasized the husband's maintenance obligation, and allowed partial relief by increasing maintenance while rejecting claims for recovery of gold and money.
Fact of the Case:
The wife sought recovery of gold ornaments and money from the husband, claiming misuse and misappropriation, while the husband countered that he provided financial support. The Family Court awarded maintenance but declined her recovery claims.
Finding of the Court:
The court found lack of evidence for the wife’s claims regarding gold and money. The husband's payments to her were acknowledged, but his obligation to pay maintenance was upheld.
Issues: Whether the wife was entitled to recover gold and money from the husband, and whether the awarded maintenance amount was sufficient.
Ratio Decidendi: The husband has a statutory obligation to maintain his wife despite prior financial transfers, and evidentiary burden lies on the claimant to substantiate claims.
Final Decision: The Mat.Appeal was allowed in part, enhancing maintenance to Rs. 4,000 per month, while the Cross Objection was dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
Sophy Thomas, J.
The parties in the above proceedings are husband and wife.
2. In Mat. Appeal No.488 of 2020, the appellant is the wife and respondent is the husband. The wife is challenging the judgment and decree in OP No.1243 of 2014, as her prayer for money and gold were declined. The husband filed Cross Objection No.81 of 2020 against the very same judgment, by which maintenance was ordered to the wife. FAO No. 62 of 2023 is filed by the husband, challenging the attachment ordered in that OP as per order in I.A.No.1845 of 2014.
3. Both the appellant and respondent are senior citizens.
Their marriage was solemnised on 31st Edavam, 1973. She filed OP No.1243 of 2014 for recovery of money, gold and maintenance. According to her, at the time of marriage, she was given 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments and apart from that, 35.5 cents of property was agreed to be given to her from her family. Her entire gold ornaments were misused by the respondent. He sold away her property and misappropriated the amount for his own purposes. Their matrimonial life was miserable due to the cruel nature and wayward life of the respondent. Three children were born in their lawful wedlock. In the year 1996, Rs. 3 lakh was given by the appellant to the respondent, for purchasing a property. Instead of purchasing the property in her name, he purchased the same in his own name without her knowledge. The respondent sold away 337 cents of land for a total consideration of Rs.1,68,50,000/- and deposited more than Rs.1 Crore in Indian Overseas Bank, Vadasserikonam. On 25.10.2014, the respondent assaulted the appellant and she was forcibly thrown out of his house. So she filed OP No.1243 of 2014, for recovery of gold, money, maintenance etc.
4. The respondent filed objection saying that he never misused or misappropriated her gold ornaments or money. In fact, the appellant and her children deserted him and on account of their compulsion, he was forced to sell away his property, and from the sale proceeds, an amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/- was given to the appellant and her children. The respondent was having only the balance amount of Rs.30,00,000/-, which is in deposit before Bank. She attached that Bank Account and so, he is not able to withdraw any amount from his account.
5. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A11 were marked from the side of the appellant, RWs1 and 2 were examined and Exts.B1 to B15 were marked from the side of the respondent and Ext.C1 was marked as Court Exhibit.
6. After analysing the facts and evidence, the Family Court declined her prayer for recovery of money and gold, and partly allowed the OP by awarding maintenance @ Rs.2,000/-. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the appellant preferred this appeal, and the respondent preferred Cross Objection No.81 of 2020, challenging the legality of the maintenance ordered by the Family Court.
7. The respondent/husband filed FAO No.62 of 2023, against the attachment ordered by the Family Court in I.A.No.1845 of 2014 covering A schedule landed property and B schedule Bank Account.
8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the wife as well as the husband.
7. Now let us see whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned judgment or in the order in I.A.No.1845 of 2014, warranting interference by this Court.
8. Learned Family Court found that there was nothing to show that the appellant/wife was having 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage or to show that the respondent misused or misappropriated her gold ornaments. So her prayer for recovery of 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments was declined. In the absence of any materials to show that she was having 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments, or to prove its entrustment, the Family Court is justified in finding that she was not entitled for a decree for 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments.
9. Regarding Rs.3 lakh alleged to have been given by the appellant for purchasing property also, there was no evidence
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
