Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 24655
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, SOPHY THOMAS, JJ
MATHEW M. – Appellant
Versus
CINIMOL AUGUSTINE P. – Respondent
Mat.Appeal 1068 2015
SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL, SMT.C.DEVIKA RANI KAIMAL, SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD
A spouse's financial contributions can establish ownership rights over property despite legal title held by the other spouse; claims for valuables require substantial evidence.
Headnote:
Family Law - Property Rights - Family Court Decision - Property Claims and Misappropriation - O.P No.619 of 2013, O.P No.119 of 2014 - The Family Court determined property ownership based on financial contributions, declared a gift deed fraudulent, and addressed claims for the value of gold ornaments, leading to appeals by the husband.
Fact of the Case:
The wife alleged misappropriation of property and gold ornaments by the husband, asserting ownership based on financial contributions. Disputes arose after living separately due to domestic abuse, prompting legal action to declare her rights over the property and recover her valuables.
Finding of the Court:
The Family Court favored the wife's claims regarding property ownership based on her financial contributions, declaring the husband's gift deed to his brother as fraudulent. However, it found insufficient evidence to support the wife's claim regarding gold ornaments.
Issues: Whether the wife established her entitlement to property and the value of gold ornaments misappropriated by the husband.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined property ownership based on the wife's financial contributions rather than the husband's claims. The absence of evidence regarding the gold ornaments led to a decision against the wife's claim for their value.
Final Decision: The appeal partly allowed; the wife's claims for property upheld, the decree for gold ornaments set aside.
J U D G M E N T
Sophy Thomas, J.
These appeals arise out of the common judgment dated
11.08.2015 in OP No.119 of 2014 and 619 of 2013 on the file of Family Court, Kannur.
2. Smt.Cinimol Augustine was married to Sri.Mathew M on
12.01.2002 at Marygiri Church. The wife was a Nurse working in Kuwait and the husband was a Civil Overseer in Pariyaram Medical College, as on the date of marriage. Subsequently, the husband was taken to Kuwait by the wife and they lived together as husband and wife. According to the wife, she was given 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments from her family at the time of marriage, and soon after the marriage, those ornaments were entrusted with her mother-in-law, and subsequently, it was misused by the husband. She was sending amounts regularly to the Bank Account opened by her in Kerala, as instructed by the husband, and she had entrusted money with the husband and his brother, for purchasing properties in her name. But, on breach of trust, the husband purchased property in his own name and subsequently, he gifted that property to his brother Mr.Joseph Mathew, so as to defeat her right. She had given amounts to the husband to meet the marriage expenses also, and she had also met the expenses for his visa to take him abroad. Later their relationship became strained, and in September 2012, the husband manhandled her and left her company. Since then they are living separate.
3. On 24.02.2012, the wife came to know that her husband had executed a gift deed with respect to the schedule property in favour of his brother. At that juncture, she filed O.P No.619 of 2013 against her husband and his brother, to declare her title, to declare the gift deed executed by her husband to his brother as null and void, and also for a mandatory injunction to reconvey that property into her name. She filed O.P No.119 of 2014 for recovery of money and gold ornaments.
4. In both cases, the respondents opposed the claim of the petitioner/wife. According to them, the schedule property was purchased by the husband expending his own money and so, the wife had no right, title or interest over that property. Since the brother of the husband expended considerable amount for purchasing that property, and as he was the one who took care of the education and other expenses of the husband, he executed a gift deed in favour of his brother. No gold ornaments were entrusted by the wife with the mother-in-law, and there was no occasion for the husband to misuse the same. He never received any amounts from the wife, though he is admitting that he was taken to Kuwait by his wife. According to him, he was employed in Kerala and he had sufficient amounts with him to meet the expenses for going to Kuwait.
5. O.P No.619 of 2013 and O.P No.119 of 2014 were tried together by the Family Court, treating O.P No.619 of 2013 as the leading case. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A25 were marked from the side of the petitioner/wife. RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked from the side of the respondent/husband. Exts.X1 to X3 were marked as witness exhibits.
6. On analysing the available facts and evidence, the learned Family Court allowed O.P No.619 of 2013, and partly allowed O.P No.119 of 2014, directing the respondent/husband to pay a sum of Rs.17,25,000/- as the value of 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments. All other prayers in that OP were turned down. The husband has come up with these appeals, challenging the common judgment in O.P No.119 of 2014 and O.P No.619 of 2013.
7. No appeal has been preferred by the wife against the judgment and decree in O.P No.119 of 2014, which was only partly allowed.
8. Now let us have a reappraisal of the available facts and evidence, to find out whether any interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and decree.
9. PW1-the wife deposed that, her husband persuaded her to purchase the schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.21 lakh. Though she was not amenable initially, later she inspected t
