Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 44069
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sathish Ninan, P. Krishna Kumar, JJ
Sibichen Joseph @ Sebastian – Appellant
Versus
Sheeba @ Aleyamma – Respondent
Mat.Appeal No. 397 of 2017 | OP No. 206 of 2014 | Mat.Appeal No. 941 of 2017 | OP (FC) No. 642 of 2018
For the Appellants: SRI.MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM, SMT.MERRY GEORGE
For the Respondents: SRI.MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM, SMT.MERRY GEORGE, SHRI.P.BABU KUMAR
In marital asset disputes, the court may determine actual asset quantity, order restitution, and specify time-bound return or monetary realization, with value assessed as of realization date; misappropriation proven leads to restitution of affected assets.
Headnote:(A) Law and References - Matrimonial proceedings in Family Court - Entitlement to restitution of marital assets where misappropriation is alleged; valuation of assets on date of recovery; reliance on evidence and reduction/quantification of assets.
(B) Principles - When ownership/quantity of marital assets is disputed, determine actual quantity and order restitution or value; do not rely solely on unverified statements; proper appraisal of evidence and maintenance implications as applicable.
(C) Facts - Marriage solemnised in 2001; husband/ wife dispute over gold ornaments and funds; family court decree granted for value of part of ornaments; misappropriation alleged and proved through pledged ornaments with a cooperative bank; quantity of ornaments found to be 40 sovereigns; misappropriation of 30 sovereigns established; appeal courts consider evidence and determine restitution.
(D) Issues - Whether the ornament quantity and misappropriation justify restitution of assets and conversion to monetary value; whether lower court’s findings require modification; proper remedy for maintenance proceedings. (E) Findings/Reasoning (Ratio) - The quantity of ornaments was found to be 40 sovereigns; misappropriation established; wife entitled to 30 sovereigns; value of ornaments to be recovered as on date of recovery; reliance on established precedent that value is recoverable; execution of maintenance is to be pursued as per law. (F) Final Decision - Order allowing appeals; set aside Family Court decree; original petition decreed to return 30 sovereigns within one month; failure to return permits realization of value; original petition dismissed without prejudice to rights. (G) Parties - Spouses; relief sought in matrimonial dispute; deposits/pledges and ornament preservation issues. (H) Dissent/Alternative Views - None articulated in the text. (I) Final Result - Appeals allowed; decree and judgment of Family Court set aside; return of 30 sovereigns within one month; failure leads to realization of value; maintenance proceedings unaffected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quantification/restoration of marital assets. (Para 3) |
Sathish Ninan, J.
The original petition filed by the wife against the husband, seeking return of gold ornaments was decreed in part by the Family Court. The husband and wife challenge the decree, in so far as it is against them, in the respective appeals. The Original Petition relates to the rejection of an application for attachment in MC proceeding for maintenance.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on
06.01.2001. According to the wife, at the time of marriage she was provided with 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹ 5 lakhs. It is claimed that during the year 2013, a further amount of ₹ 10 lakhs was given. The parties fell apart. It is alleged that 50 sovereigns of ornaments and the Mat. Appeal Nos.941, 397 of 2017 &
O.P.(FC) No.642 of 2018 -: 2 :-
money were misappropriated by the respondent. The wife seeks for return of the gold ornaments and money.
3. The husband denied the claim that at the time of marriage the petitioner had 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments. According to him, the petitioner had only approximately 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The claim regarding entrustment of money, and the allegation of misappropriation, were denied.
4. The Family Court granted a decree for the value of
50 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The claim for money was disallowed.
5. We have heard learned counsel on either side.
6. While in the original petition, the wife claimed that at the time of marriage she had 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments, as PW1, the claim was that she had 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The father of the petitioner was examined as PW2. He has also deposed that the daughter was provided with 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments and that 50 sovereigns Mat. Appeal Nos.941, 397 of 2017 &
O.P.(FC) No.642 of 2018 -: 3 :-
were misappropriated by the husband.
7. According to the respondent, the wife had only 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments. DWs.2 and 3 viz. the father and mother of the respondent also deposed accordingly. From Ext.A1 wedding photograph it cannot be said whether the quantity of gold ornaments were 60 sovereigns or 40 sovereigns. There is no material to find the actual quantity of gold ornaments. In the light thereof we are constrained to accept the quantity of gold ornaments as 40 sovereigns.
8. Now coming to the alleged misappropriation, Ext.A9 series shows that the respondent was regularly pledging ornaments with Ramapuram Regional Service Co-operative Bank during the period from 2008-2013. Though the respondent would contend that the pledged ornaments belonged to his relatives, none of such relatives are named or examined. The above, coupled with the evidence of PW1 indicates that the respondent had misappropriated the gold ornaments of the wife.
Mat. Appeal Nos.941, 397 of 2017 &
O.P.(FC) No.642 of 2018 -: 4 :-
9. It is the case of the petitioner that she had 10 sovereigns with her. Therefore it has to be found that, from out of the 40 sovereigns, the respondent was dealing with only the remaining 30 sovereigns. The petitioner-wife is entitled for a decree for the said quantity.
10. This Court has in Syamini S Nair And Others v. Sreekanth R
2022 (2) KLT 896 held that the wife is entitled to the value of the gold ornaments as on the date of recovery. The Family Court has granted a decree for an amount of ₹ 11,20,000/- only, in lieu of the gold ornaments. The decree is liable to be modified accordingly.
11. With regard to execution of the maintenance claim the petitioner is only to be relegated to the appropriate remedies under law. No directions are called for in the O.P.
In the result, these appeals are allowed. The decree and judgment of the Family Court are set aside. The original petition will stand decreed directing the respondent-husband to return 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments within a period of Mat. Appeal Nos.941, 397 of 2017 &
O.P.(FC) No.642 of 2018 -: 5 :-
one month from today, on failure of which, the petitioner- wife is en
