J U D G M E N T

Sophy Thomas, J.

The respondents in O.P No.860 of 2008 on the file of Family Court, Alappuzha are the appellants herein. The respondent, who is the daughter-in-law of the 1st appellant and sister-in-law of other appellants, filed that O.P for recovery of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments, which she had allegedly entrusted with the husband of the 1st appellant, for the marriage of the 3rd appellant. The Family Court decreed that O.P directing the appellants to return Rs.4,50,000/- being the value of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments with 6% interest per annum from the date of O.P till realisation. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants preferred this appeal.

2. The respondent is the wife of one Mr.Sreejith, who is the son of the 1st appellant and brother of appellants 2 and 3. The marriage between the respondent and Mr.Sreejith was solemnised on 09.04.2000. At the time of marriage, 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given from her family. On 16.04.2000, marriage of the 3rd appellant was solemnised. Since her father Sri.Bhaskaran was having some financial problems, he asked the respondent to give away her 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments for giving to the 3rd appellant for her marriage. Accordingly, the respondent gave her entire 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the 3rd appellant, on the assurance that the ornaments would be returned within three months. But they did not keep their word. Meanwhile, Sri.Bhaskaran passed away. The appellants ill-treated the respondent, and compelled her to leave her matrimonial home. So, she shifted her residence to a rented house, along with her husband. She issued a lawyer notice asking the appellants to return her gold ornaments. But they were not amenable. So she filed the above O.P for recovery of her 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its market value from the appellants.

3. The appellants/respondents contested the case challenging the jurisdiction of the Family Court as well as the alleged entrustment of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments, pleaded by the respondent. The parties went on trial by examining PWs 1 to 5 and marking Exts.A1 to A3 from the side of petitioner/respondent, and examining RWs 1 and 2 and marking Ext.B1 from the side of appellants/respondents. After evaluating the facts and evidence, the Family Court decreed the O.P allowing the petitioner/respondent to recover Rs.4,50,000/- being the value of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realisation from the respondents/appellants jointly.

4. The appellants are assailing the impugned judgment and decree mainly on three grounds;

i) The Family Court had no jurisdiction to entertain O.P No.860 of 2008, as parties to the marriage were not in the party array.

ii) The respondent/wife was not having 50 sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage.

iii) No gold ornaments were entrusted by the petitioner/respondent with the respondents/

appellants.

5. Now let us have a scrutiny of the available facts and evidence, in the light of the grounds urged by the appellants, to assail the impugned judgment and decree.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the husband of the respondent is not in the party array, and there is evidence to show that still they are leading their marital life. Since one of the parties to the marriage has not been joined in the suit, and there is no marital dispute between them, it cannot be said that it is a dispute coming under Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act. But, the case of the respondent/wife is that, she was given 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments from her family at the time of marriage, and the entire gold ornaments were entrusted with her father-in-law, as he requested the same to conduct the marriage of his daughter, the 3rd appellant. So, the receipt of gold ornaments as her paternal share, and entrustment of gold ornaments with her in-laws as a trust, are essentially a 'circumstance arising out of marital relationshi