Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, SOPHY THOMAS, JJ
TRIPTHA KRISHNA K.S – Appellant
Versus
BIMAL RAJ V – Respondent
Mat.Appeal 1150 2015
Family Law - Recovery of Assets - Hindu Marriage Act - Sections Not Specified - The court held that the appellant failed to prove the entrustment of gold ornaments and cash, granting part relief by recognizing entitlement to 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments, concluding that lack of evidence and inconsistent claims undermined her case.
Fact of the Case:
The wife sought recovery of gold ornaments, cash, and a dressing table after claiming they were taken by the husband and his family under false pretenses. The Family Court partially decreed the case but rejected other claims.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to prove her claims regarding the entrustment of gold ornaments and cash, leading to a decisive upholding of the Family Court's assessment of evidence and credibility of testimonies.
Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to recover the gold ornaments and cash she claims were taken by the husband and his family without her consent.
Ratio Decidendi: The inability of the appellant to demonstrate clear and consistent evidence of entrustment for the gold ornaments and cash led to the rejection of her broader claims, confirming the Family Court's judgment.
Final Decision: Both appeals are dismissed with partial modification recognizing entitlement to 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments.
J U D G M E N T
Sophy Thomas, J.
These appeals arise out of the judgment in O.P No.283 of
2011 on the file of the Family Court, Kollam. The wife filed that O.P for recovery of 270 sovereigns of gold ornaments, Rs.6.5 lakh in cash and a dressing table worth Rs.30,000/-. The Family Court, as per impugned judgment dated 21.08.2015, partly decreed that O.P allowing the wife to realise 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its present market value from the husband and his assets, and her remaining claims were rejected. The wife filed Mat.Appeal No.1150 of 2015 against the reliefs which were rejected, and the husband filed Mat.Appeal No.453 of 2016 against the reliefs which were granted against him.
2. Brief facts necessary for the appeals could be stated as follows:
The marriage between the appellant/wife and the respondent/husband was solemnised on 01.05.2002 as per Hindu rites and custom. The appellant was given 270 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. The husband and his mother were gifted gold ornaments weighing 20 sovereigns from her family in connection with the marriage. Out of the 270 sovereigns of gold she was wearing, the respondent and his parents took 250 sovereigns, promising that it would be kept in the bank locker of the father-in-law. Still they are possessing her gold ornaments along with the ornaments gifted to them. So she is entitl ed to get back 270 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the respondents, who are her husband, his mother and brother’s wife.
3. Rs.5,00,000/- in cash was entrusted with the respondent/husband for purchasing a car, and Rs.1,50,000/- was entrusted with him in connection with the Maruveedu ceremony. Matrimonial life of the appellant was miserable and their relationship became strained as the respondent was greedy to get the automobile service station of her mother. After separation for a while, in the year 2007, they purchased a residential house at Udayamperoor and started residence there, along with their child.
Even after that, friction continued in their life and on 23.12.2010, she was forcibly sent out of the house along with the child. So, she wants to get back her 270 sovereigns of gold ornaments, cash worth Rs.6.5 lakh and also the dressing table worth Rs.30,000/-.
4. The respondent/husband filed written statement denying entrustment of gold, cash or the dressing table. According to him, nothing was entrusted with him and no gold ornaments were gifted to him or his mother by the appellant. The car was purchased by him availing car loan and no amount was received for that purpose from the family of the appellant. In fact, they were relatives, and so, for the marriage, there were no financial demands. Moreover, father of the appellant died prior to their marriage, and so, their financial condition was not good to give 270 sovereigns of gold ornaments or Rs.6.5 lakh in cash. Her mother had no source of income to give that much of gold and money, for the marriage of the appellant. It was the respondent who arranged admission for the appellant in T.K.M Engineering College after the marriage, paying capitation fee of Rs.4 lakh. He himself purchased the property at Ernakulam and no amount was received for that purpose from the appellant or her mother. While residing at Ernakulam along with the respondent, on 23.01.2011 the appellant and her mother along with her relatives came to his house at Ernakulam, and removed household articles and furniture from that house. The respondent complained to local Police and on interference by the Police, the appellant was insisted to prepare a list of the articles removed. He prayed for dismissal of the O.P as she had no cause of action to file such a suit.
5. After formulating necessary issues by the Family Court, the parties went on trial. Above O.P was tried along with other connected matters pending between the parties. PWs 1 to 8 were examined and Exts.A1 to A22 were marked from the side of the appellant. RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B25 w
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
