The court affirmed maintenance obligations despite inconsistencies in gold ownership claims, emphasizing the husband's support responsibilities.

JUDGMENT

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

The wife filed a petition for recovery of 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments and money from the husband and his relatives, together with a claim for past and future maintenance to the wife and son. By the judgment impugned in this appeal, the Family Court allowed the wife to recover 34 sovereigns of gold ornaments and maintenance.

2. For convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed in the Original Petition. The marriage between the first petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 24.03.1997. As the parties had been in love for some time, the first petitioner eloped with the first respondent and they conducted a simple marriage at a temple. Since the ceremony lacked the usual formalities and celebrations, the first respondent later arranged a reception at Kollam on 30.09.1999, after which the first petitioner was taken to the matrimonial home. After the reception, on 02.10.1999, the first petitioner's parents entrusted 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the first respondent for the future welfare of the first petitioner. The ornaments were in the custody of the first respondent and he kept them in a secret drawer of the cupboard by entrusting the key to the first petitioner. When the first respondent went abroad, the first petitioner was forced to return to her parental home as she had been subjected to severe cruelty by the relatives of the first respondent, and thus the ornaments came into the hands of the respondents, it is alleged. Alleging that the first respondent neglected to maintain the petitioners/wife and son, they claimed past and future maintenance at the rate of ₹10,000/- each per month.

3. The respondents refuted the above contentions. According to them, the first petitioner was coming from very poor circumstances, and therefore none of her family members were capable of purchasing the gold ornaments claimed. Since the marriage took place without the knowledge of the first petitioner's family, the allegation that her parents handed over the gold ornaments is inherently improbable. It is further contended that, as the first petitioner had been not ready to live together with the first respondent, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. It is also alleged that the first respondent was taking care of the petitioners/wife and the child.

4. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, PW2 and DW1, DW2, Exts. A1 to A8 and Exts, B1 to B5. After considering the disputed issues in the light of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court held that the respondents had withheld the best evidence, namely the photographs taken at the time of the reception and thus it was reasonable and probable that approximately 34 sovereigns of gold ornaments might have been misappropriated by the respondents. The court further directed the first respondent to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of ₹ 6,000/- to the first petitioner and ₹7,000/- to the second petitioner/child, from the date of petition. Past maintenance for a period of 3 years prior to the date of filing of the petition at the rate of ₹ 4,000/- each was also allowed.

5. We have heard Sri.Sreedev S., the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/respondents and Sri.Shaji Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents /petitioners.

6. Having considered the rival submissions and the pleadings of both sides, the point for determination is whether the respondents are bound to return 34 sovereigns of gold ornaments and whether the first respondent is liable to pay maintenance as ordered.

7. The petitioners rest their case mainly on oral evidence of PW1, the wife and PW2, her mother. However, we find very serious