IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sathish Ninan, P. Krishna Kumar, JJ
O.RAGESH – Appellant
Versus
THARAMMAL DIVYA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims regarding marital property must be substantiated by evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
Sathish Ninan, J.
The original petition filed by the wife against the husband seeking return of gold ornaments, was decreed in part. The husband is in appeal. The wife has filed a cross objection claiming value of gold at the time of its payment/realisation.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 06.05.2001. According to the wife, at the time of marriage she was provided with 21 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The husband obtained the gold ornaments from her on various occasions and pledged it. The ornaments were not returned. The parties fell apart and are residing separately since the year 2014. The original petition was filed seeking return of the gold ornaments.
3. The husband denied that the wife had 21 sovereigns of gold ornaments. He also denied of having pledged any of the ornaments of the wife. It was contended that the wife herself had pledged a few of her ornaments and that the balance ornaments are with her.
4. The Family Court granted a decree for recovery of 15½ sovereigns or its value, which the court fixed at ₹ 22,000/- per sovereign.
5. We have heard lear

Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.