The court upheld the Family Court's decision on maintenance and return of gold ornaments, emphasizing the need for substantiated claims in family law disputes.

JUDGMENT

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

These cases arise from a common judgment dated 27.03.2015 in MC No.87 of 2013 and OP No. 202 of 2013 on the file of the Family Court, Thalassery. Since the parties are the same and the disputes arose from the very same cause of action, these cases are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The wife filed OP No.202 of 2013 before the Family Court, Thalassery, claiming past maintenance, return of gold ornaments, return of dowry and other costs. She also filed MC No. 87 of 2013 claiming future maintenance for herself and the minor daughter from the husband. Before the Family Court, the evidence consisted of oral evidence of PWs 1 to 6 and documentary evidence of Exts.A1 & A2 series on the side of the wife; and oral evidence of RWs 1 & 2 and documentary evidence of Exts.B1 to B6 on the side of the husband. The Family Court, after an elaborate consideration of the issue, decreed OP No.202 of 2013 and allowed MC No. 87 of 2013 by common judgment dated 27.03.2015, as follows:

“1) The respondent is directed to return 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value as on today within a period of 3 months from today to the petitioners.

2) The respondent is directed to return back Rs.2 lakhs to the petitioner or to the father of the petitioner.

3) Respondent is directed to pay a lump-sum Rs.39,000/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Thousand only) towards the past maintenance to petitioners for a period of 6 months from 01.10.12 to 01.04.13 at the rate of Rs.6,500/- per month.

4) Counter petitioner is directed to pay monthly maintenance allowances at the rate of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) per month to 1st petitioner and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred only) per month to 2nd petitioner from the date of MC onwards.”

3. Mat.Appeal No. 519 of 2015 is filed by the husband challenging the impugned decree in OP No.202 of 2013, by which the Family Court directed return of gold ornaments of the wife and allowed past maintenance to the wife and the minor daughter. CO

No.207 of 2019 in Mat.Appeal No.519 of 2015 is filed by the wife challenging the impugned decree, directing the husband to return only 15 gold sovereigns against the claim of 50 gold sovereigns. RP(FC) No.238 of 2015 is filed by the husband challenging the impugned decree in MC No.87 of 2013, ordering future maintenance to the wife and minor daughter, whereas RP(FC) No.438 of 2019 is filed by the wife and minor daughter, dissatisfied with the quantum of future maintenance.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the husband and the learned counsel for the wife.

5. It is not in dispute that the marriage was solemnized and thereafter, they resided together as husband and wife in the matrimonial home, a daughter was born out of the wedlock and since 01.10.2012, they are living separately.

6. The husband’s primary contention is that the wife’s family did not give 53 sovereigns of gold as a marital gift and that he did not receive any dowry for business purposes. It is his further case that at the time of marriage, after obtaining permission from the husband, the wife wore fake ‘Thirur gold’ and hence, he has not pledged any gold ornament belonging to his wife. Though the husband avers that although he received an amount of ₹2,00,000/- from his father-in-law, he handed the amount over to one Narayanan and upon its return, he gave it back to his father-in-law. According to him, the wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home and despite his efforts, she refused to return. It is his further case that he is not having a steady income and is earning only ₹3,000/- per month and the amoun