In matrimonial cases, the burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish their claims regarding property, while the husband must provide necessary maintenance to his wife and child.

JUDGMENT

M.B.Snehalatha.J

We are disposing of these two appeals jointly since it arise from the very same judgment and decree of the Family Court, Tirur, namely, O.P.No.281/2014 filed by the wife against the husband and in-laws, claiming return of gold ornaments, patrimony and past maintenance. 2.

2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Family Court disallowed the wife's claim for return of gold and cash but allowed the claim for past maintenance. Aggrieved by the declinement of the relief of return of gold and cash, the wife has preferred Mat.A No.607/2022. Mat.A No.164/2022 has been filed by the husband challenging the decree to the extent to which it directed him to pay past maintenance to the wife and child.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to by their rank in O.P.No.281/2014.

4. Petitioner filed the Original Petition stating that her marriage with the 1^st respondent was on 15.4.2012; that at the time of marriage, she was given 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹2 lakhs as cash from her house. R2 is the mother of R1. R3 and R4 are his sisters. Subsequently, R1 to R3 took her 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and they utilized it for purchasing 5 cents of property in the name of R1. Respondents continued their ill treatment and harassment, demanding more money from her house for the renovation of the house and accordingly, her brother again gave an amount of ₹2 lakhs to the respondents. While she was pregnant, R1 manhandled her and driven her out of the matrimonial home; that he deserted her from 25.5.2013 onwards. Though R1 has sufficient means and income, he failed to provide any maintenance to her and the child. Hence, the OP was filed for realization of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments, ₹4 lakhs and also claiming an amount of ₹1,28,000/- towards past maintenance.

5. Respondents filed counter denying the case of 1st petitioner that she was given 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹4 lakhs as cash from her house. They denied the allegations of misappropriation of any gold ornaments and cash belonging to the 1st petitioner and contended that her family had no financial capacity to give 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹4 lakhs, as alleged. 1^st petitioner in her conversation with R1 prior to the marriage had told him that she was not having any gold ornaments to wear on her wedding day and accordingly, R1 had advised her to wear imitation ornaments. Allegations of cruelty levelled against the respondents are false and hence denied. 1^st petitioner developed an illicit relationship with other men and when R1 questioned the same, she abused him. It was she who deserted the R1. R1 is not liable to pay any past maintenance and he has no means to pay any maintenance.

6. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Family Court dismissed the wife's claim for return of gold ornaments and cash. Past maintenance at the rate of ₹3,000/- per month to the 1stpetitioner and ₹4,500/- to the 2ndpetitioner for a period of 11 months was granted.

7. Challenging the declinement of the relief of return of gold ornaments and patrimony, petitioners in OP have filed Mat.Appeal No.607/2022 contending that the Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective; that the Family Court went wrong in disallowing the claim for return of gold and cash misappropriated by the respondents; that the Family Court ought to have found that the respondents failed to explain what happened to the gold ornaments brought by the 1stpetitioner to the matrimonial home. The learned counsel