IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE &

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 19TH BHADRA, 1943 MAT.APPEAL NO. 971 OF 2017 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.706/2013 OF FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA, DATED 29.03.2017 -----------

APPELLANT/S:

1 MOMET ALEX, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.LATE ALEXANDER, R/O. MUTHIRAPARAMBIL, KOODAL P.O, KOODAL MURI, KOODAL VILLAGE, KALANJOOR PANCHAYATH, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

2 KUNJAMMA ALEX, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O. LATE ALEXANDER, R/O MUTHIRAPARAMBIL, KOODAL P.O, KOODAL MURI, KOODAL VILLAGE, KULANJOOR PANCHAYATH, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

BY ADV SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT/S:

ASHA JOHN, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O. MOMET ALEX, R/O.CHAKKALAMANNIL, KOODAL MURI, KOODAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 693.

BY ADVS.

SRI.M.JAYAKRISHNAN SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.08.2021, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal NO.1146/2018, THE COURT ON 10.09.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE &

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 19TH BHADRA, 1943 MAT.APPEAL NO. 1146 OF 2018 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.(DIV.)NO.197/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA, DATED 29.03.2017 --------------

APPELLANT/S:

MOMET ALEX, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O LATE ALEXANDER, R/O MUTHIRAPARAMBIL, KOODAL P.O., KOODAL MURI, KOODAL VILLAGE, KALANJOOR PANCHAYATH, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.

V.PHILIP MATHEW SRI.GIBI.C.GEORGE RESPONDENT/S:

ASHA JOHN, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O MOMET ALEX, R/O CHAKKALAMANNIL, KOODAL MURI, KOODAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689693.

BY ADVS.

SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.M.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.08.2021, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal NO.971 OF 2017, THE COURT ON 10.09.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JJ.

=========================

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dated this the 10th day of September, 2021 J U D G M E N T A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

These matrimonial appeals relate to denial of divorce to the husband and allowing a claim for recovery of patrimony from the husband and his mother. Both matters were tried together by the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. A common judgment was passed on 29/3/2017. For the sake of brevity, we refer the parties as per their marital status.

2. We shall first advert to M.A.No. 971/2017, the appeal filed by the husband and his mother challenging the direction for recovery of money. The marriage took place in accordance with the Christian Community ceremonies and rites on 30/6/2003. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the wife’s parents promised to give Rs.3,50,000/- as patrimony. There was also no dispute to the fact that Rs.1,50,000/- was received by the husband and his family. The above amount was deposited in the State Bank of Travancore, Pathanapuram Branch in the joint name of the husband and wife. The amount is now lying in the bank and as on 27/12/2012, with the accrued interest, the amount available in the account was Rs.2,59,015/-.

3. One of the prayers of the wife in the petition for recovery of patrimony from the husband and his mother was to declare that the amount lying in the joint account belongs to her. That prayer has been allowed by the Family Court. There was a serious dispute in regard to payment of Rs.2,00,000/-, out of Rs.3,50,000/-. According to the husband, that amount was never paid, though it was promised. The Family Court overruled this objection and found that the husband and his family are liable to pay that amount. The Family Court relied on the evidence of the wife and her father. However, the Family Court rejected the claim for value of gold ornaments allegedly entrusted with the husband and his family and misappropriated by them. There is no challenge against dismissal of that claim.

4. A