A Muslim father has a legal obligation to meet reasonable marriage expenses for his daughters, and failing to do so constitutes grounds for recovery of such expenses.

JUDGMENT

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

The respondent/wife filed a petition for recovery of money and gold ornaments, and the amounts spent by her for the marriages of two daughters, from the appellant/husband. Though the claim for recovery of money and gold ornaments was rejected, the trial court allowed the wife to recover Rs.4,50,000/- from the appellant towards the expenses incurred by her for the marriages of their daughters. Aggrieved by the said order, the husband is in appeal before us.

2. The wife pleaded that during the time of the marriages of their two daughters, the family members of the husband promised her that his share of the family property would be allotted to him in the family partition for meeting the marriage expenses of the daughters, if she somehow met all the expenses for the time being. Accordingly, the wife availed loans and managed to conduct the marriages by spending Rs.4,50,000/-. She further stated that she availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from North Malabar Gramin Bank, Thayyil Branch, and also pledged gold ornaments for Rs.2,50,000/- in the same bank for the said purpose, but the appellant failed to discharge the liabilities even after receiving the family property.

3. The appellant denied the above allegations and contended that an occasion for giving such a promise to the wife did not arise at all, as the entire marriage expenses of the daughters were met by him.

4. After considering the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and RW1, and Exts. A1 series and A2, the Family Court concluded that the appellant, being the father of the daughters, is bound to meet the said expenses, but he did not spend any amount for their marriages, and accordingly passed the impugned decree.

5. We have heard Sri. I.V. Pramod, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri. Gracious Kuriakose, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. In the original petition, the respondent/wife stated that at the time of her marriage, the appellant received Rs.10,000/- from her father and that her father had given her 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments. In cross-examination, she conceded that her father had died one year prior to the marriage. Referring to the above inconsistent plea made by the respondent, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that PW2 has no credibility and the court should not place reliance on her oral testimony. Referring to Exts. A1 and A2, the learned counsel further submitted that the entire case set up by the respondent—that she had managed to raise Rs.4,50,000/- by pledging gold ornaments and availing a housing loan—is false, as the said documents show that the pledging as well as the availing of the loan occurred subsequent to the marriages of the daughters. As PW2 stated falsehoods in material areas of her deposition, her statement should be discarded in toto, it was urged. It is further contended that who agreed to bear the marriage expenses is not specifically pleaded in the petition, rather than making a vague allegation that ‘the relatives’ agreed so.

7. On the contrary, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent managed to conduct the marriage ceremonies by borrowing the required money from various sources, including availing a bank loan and pledging gold ornaments, and thus there is no substantial contradiction in her version when it is read together with the version of PW3, her sister. It was further pointed out that the appellant, when cross-examined during the trial, admitted every aspect put forward by the respondent, and hence, there is no illegality in the impugned order.

8. The oral evidence of the respondent consists of her own testimony as PW2, and the testimonies