J U D G M E N T

Sophy Thomas, J.

The petitioner/wife in OP No.385 of 2013 on the file of Family Court, Pala, preferred this appeal aggrieved by the decree, to the extent it exempted the 2nd respondent/father-in-law from the liability to return the gold ornaments.

2. The wife filed OP No.385 of 2013 for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- given as patrimony as well as 105 sovereigns of gold ornaments entrusted with the respondents.

3. The 1st respondent/husband remained ex parte throughout. Respondents 2 and 3 opposed her petition contending that the money Rs.10,00,000/- received from the father of the appellant was transferred into the account of the 1st respondent/husband and that amount was utilised by the appellant and the 1st respondent. Regarding the gold ornaments, it was kept in the joint Locker of the 1st respondent and the appellant, and they were handling the same, and hence respondents 2 and 3 have no liability towards the appellant/wife.

4. The parties went on trial by examining PW1, RWs 1 to 4 and marking Exts.A1 to A20, B1 to B14, X1 and X2.

5. After analysing the facts and evidence, the Family Court found that respondents 1 and 2/the husband and father-in-law were liable to return