Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 17971
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sathish Ninan, J
Wife and Daughter – Appellant
Versus
Husband, Mother-in-law and Brother-in-law – Respondent
Mat.Appeal 315/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Smt.K.Kusamam
For the Respondents: Sri.M.Dinesh
The court emphasized the necessity of evidence to support claims of misappropriation and maintenance, ruling that the burden of proof lies with the petitioners.
Headnote:(A) Family Law - Maintenance - Gold Ornaments - Allegations of Misappropriation - The Original Petition was filed for recovery of gold, money, maintenance, and compensation. The Family Court decreed maintenance alone, leading to an appeal by the petitioners. The marriage occurred on 07.11.1999; the wife claimed 35 sovereigns of gold and ₹1 lakh at marriage, later earning 5 sovereigns and ₹50,000. The Family Court found only 10 sovereigns and ₹20,000 were provided at marriage, dismissing claims of additional payments and misappropriation. The appeal partially allowed, granting the return of 15 sovereigns and ₹4,89,000 with interest. (Paras 1-24)
(B) Appeal - Burden of Proof - The petitioners failed to substantiate claims of misappropriation and maintenance prior to being driven out of the matrimonial home. The court emphasized the need for evidence to support claims of financial transactions and abuse. (Paras 1-24)
(C) Compensation - Claim for damages was rejected due to lack of evidence connecting the husband to the alleged hearing impairment. The court found no proof of assault or resultant injury. (Paras 22-23)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial claims regarding marriage and financial contributions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondents' counterclaims regarding financial contributions. (Para 4 , 7) |
| 3. court's assessment of financial evidence and credibility. (Para 5 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. evaluation of claims for additional payments and loans. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. court's findings on misappropriation of gold ornaments. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 6. assessment of maintenance claims and evidence of assault. (Para 20 , 22) |
| 7. final decree regarding the return of gold and monetary claims. (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT
Sathish Ninan, J.
The wife and daughter filed Original Petition before the Family Court against the husband, mother-in- law and brother-in-law as respondents. The reliefs sought were for recovery of gold, money, maintenance (past and future), and for compensation. The Original Petition was decreed for maintenance alone. The wife and daughter (petitioners) are in appeal.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 07.11.1999. The second petitioner was born in the wedlock.
3. According to the wife, at the time of marriage she was provided with 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments and an amount of ₹ 1 lakh. Thereafter, she worked and earned another 5 sovereigns and an amount of ₹ 50,000/-.
It is claimed that, on various occasions thereafter, amounts were paid to the husband as hereunder: -
The allegation is that the entire gold and money were misappropriated by the respondents (husband and in-laws). It was alleged that, during the third week of May 2012, she was manhandled and consequent on a blow on the left ear, she suffered severe hearing impairment and disability. It was alleged that, on 21.05.2012, she was driven out of the matrimonial home. The wife and the daughter claimed maintenance at the rate of ₹15,000/- (10,000/- for wife and 5,000/- for daughter) per month, past and future.
4. According to the respondents, in connection with the marriage, the wife was provided with only 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹ 20,000/-. At the time of marriage she also wore few ornaments which were imitation gold. Whatever gold and money the wife had, are with her. The receipt of the other amounts alleged to have been paid, was denied. The allegation of manhandling and the alleged consequent hearing impairment, etc., were denied. It was further contended that the wife left the matrimonial home on her own accord.
5. The Family Court found that, the evidence probabilises that in connection with the marriage the wife was provided with only 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹ 20,000/- at the time of marriage. The claim regarding further payments made after the marriage was negatived as unsupported by evidence. The allegation of misappropriation was found to be unsubstantiated. The alleged manhandling and the consequent hearing impairment were held not to have been proved. Maintenance was allowed at the rate of ₹3,000/- each, per month, from 25.05.2012.
6. We have heard Smt.K.Kusamam, learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners, and Sri.M.Dinesh, the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. Before we proceed to discuss on the evidence in proof of the claims, we notice the contention of the respondents that the parties were not so financially well off. While the husband admitted that he hails from a poor family, the contention was not as such accepted by the wife. However, as PW1, she admitted that, to raise the money for marriage expenses, the 1¾ cents which belonged to them was sold to her aunt but was later repurchased in the name of her brother.
8. With regard to the claim that the wife was provided 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage, the husband, as RW1, admitted that at the time of marriage engagement, it was agreed that the wife would be provided with 35 sovereigns and an amount of ₹ 1 lakh. In further cross-examination, he was asked whether, on visual appearance, it did not appear that the wife was wearing that much quantity of gold. It is
