The court affirmed the necessity of equitable maintenance for a spouse and clarified the burden of proof regarding the return of matrimonial belongings, determining that the wife is entitled to 32 sovereigns of gold ornaments amid insufficient evidence for monetary claims.

J U D G M E N T

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

These appeals are filed by the husband and wife challenging the judgment in O.P.No.115/2010 dated 21.01.2016 passed by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The wife filed the original petition claiming recovery of 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments and a sum of ₹2,00,000/- from the husband and also for awarding maintenance @ ₹5,000/- per month to the wife and ₹4000/- per month to the minor daughter. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’.

3. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 09/02/2007 in accordance with the customs and ceremony prevailing in their community. A girl child was born in the wedlock. The respondent was working as UD Typist in the Directorate of Collegiate Education, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the wife, the gold ornaments of 60 sovereigns and the pocket money of ₹2,00,000/- given to her, at the time of marriage, were kept by the husband in his safe custody. The wife alleges that, after marriage, she was subjected to physical and mental torture. The wife and her minor daughter were deserted by the husband on 09.04.2007. 4. The date of marriage and the birth of the child are admitted by the husband. According to the husband, the gold ornaments given to the wife were entrusted with the father of the wife, immediately after the marriage for keeping them in a locker. According to him, on 09/04/2007, the wife had expressed her desire to go to her parental home, for which the husband did not raise any objection and thereafter, the wife voluntarily chose not to return to the matrimonial home. According to the husband, the wife's behaviour towards the husband and his mother was cruel. The husband claims that the wife is earning a sum of ₹7,000/- per month by leasing out a residential building and she is also earning a sum of ₹50,000/- per month by way of taking private tuition classes. Further, he claims that as per the order in M.C.No.68/2010, the husband is paying a sum of ₹3,500/- per month towards maintenance to the wife and daughter.

5. The Family Court, on the basis of the averments made by both the parties in the pleading and considering the evidence available on record, has granted a decree in favour of the wife to recover 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and its present market value together with interest @ 6% per annum and to pay maintenance @ ₹2,000/- per month to the wife and ₹1,500/- per month to the daughter. The claim for money was declined by the Family Court. Aggrieved by the above, the husband and the wife have come up before this court with the above appeal.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Leo Lukose and the learned counsel for the respondents Smt.Majida.S.

We have perused the judgment and trial court records.

7. To substantiate the pleadings, Pws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the wife. The husband was examined as CPW1.

8. The following issues arise for consideration:-

1) Whether the wife and son are entitled for the maintenance as claimed for?

2) Whether the wife is entitled to recover ₹2,00,000/- from the husband?

3) The finding of the Family Court that the first petitioner is entitled to recover 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments is correct or not?

9. We shall first consider the issue regarding the maintenance. The wife had claimed an amount of ₹5000/- per month for herself and ₹4,000/- for her minor daughter. The husband is working as UD typist in the Directorate of Collegiate Education, Thiruvananthapuram. During examination, the wife had stated that the husband was a Government servant at the time of marriage and was earning a salary of ₹25,000/- per month. He used t