A petitioner must substantiate claims with credible evidence and cannot succeed with contradictory statements.

A.M. Shaffique, J.

The petitioner in O.P.No.65 of 2011 has approached this Court challenging the judgment dated 13.6.2011 of the Family Court, Kozhikode.

2. The original petition had been filed by the appellant/petitioner seeking return of five sovereigns of gold ornaments. According to him, at the time of marriage he had garlanded her with a thali chain weighing five sovereigns. The marriage between the parties took place on 22.3.2004 and they started living separately on account of matrimonial issues. O.P.No.683 of 2009 was filed before the Family Court for divorce, which was granted as per order dated 21.12.2009. According to him, since he parties have divorced, he is entitled to get back the thali chain.

3. The respondent denied the allegations.

According to her, she had given back the thali chain even during their matrimonial relationship and she had not retained the same.

4. Before the Family Court the petitioner alone was examined as PW1. The respondent did not enter the box. The Family Court found that there was no evidence to prove that he had purchased a thali chain weighing five sovereigns. The respondent had contended that all her gold ornaments including thali chain were with PW1. In the absence of any evidence to prove that she was having thali chain with her the Family Court dismissed the petition. The Family Court also found that the present petition has been filed only after two years from the date of dissolution of marriage.

5. In the original petition filed by the petitioner he had taken up a contention that the respondent ran away from the temple after throwing away her thali chain which he took. During cross examination he stated that he had never raised such a contention in O.P.No.683 of 2009 and the thali chain is still in possession of the respondent. The Family Court found that he had taken a contradictory stand in the earlier proceedings than the present proceedings. Therefore, we find that there was justification on the part of the Family Court in rejecting the claim. The person who approaches the Court with a relief has to come with clean hands. The entire facts and circumstances have to be mentioned. If certain facts remain undisclosed, adverse inference can be drawn. As far as this case is concerned, when the petitioner had earlier contended that the respondent had thrown away the thali chain and ran away from the temple, it has to be held that he is in possession of the said chain. We do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the Family Court.

The Matrimonial Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

SD/

A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE SD/

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE

ahz/