The judgment reiterates the obligation of a husband to return marital assets and provide maintenance for children, emphasizing adherence to family law precedents.

JUDGMENT

M.B.Snehalatha.J In this appeal appellant/husband assails the judgment and decree in O.P.No.276/2015 of Family Court, Kottarakkara, whereby he was directed to return the gold ornaments and cash to the 1^st respondent-wife and maintenance to the children.

2. Parties shall be referred to by their rank in O.P.No.276/2015. 3. The wife filed the O.P stating that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 07.05.1994 in accordance with the rites and ceremonies of Hindus; that in the wedlock, 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners were born to them. At the time of marriage, she was given 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of ₹50,000/- by her parents. Out of the 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments, respondent sold 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and purchased a property having an extent of 50 cents in the joint name of 1^st petitioner and respondent. Subsequently, he sold the landed property purchased by him. Her father had given a sum of ₹2 lakhs for purchasing another property at Mevaram. Though 1^st respondent went abroad for a short period, he returned from abroad and engaged in undertaking contract for building construction works. When the said business went in loss, respondent became a drunkard and he borrowed huge amounts from several persons. When the creditors laid complaint before the Police and approached the 1^st petitioner demanding the borrowed amounts, she was constrained to pay an amount of ₹8,55,000/- to settle the amounts due to the creditors. She also had to remit ₹4,81,991/- towards the amount due from him to KSFE and Umayanallor Co-operative Bank and also had to remit an amount of ₹3,50,000/- towards the car loan availed by him. Respondent deserted the 1^st petitioner and he has not maintained her and the children. Hence the petition was filed for return of 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and also for realization of a total sum of ₹22,36,491/- and also seeking past maintenance at the rate of ₹7,500/- each per month for petitioners 2 and 3 for a period of 3 years immediately preceding the date of filing of O.P.

4.Respondent/husband filed counter admitting the marriage and birth of petitioners 2 and 3 in the said wedlock, but he denied the claim for gold and cash. It was contended by him that at the time of marriage, 1^st petitioner had only 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments; that the other ornaments worn by her on her wedding day were imitation ornaments; that her parents had no financial capacity to give 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments as contended. After marriage, respondent paid ₹5 lakhs and secured a job for the 1^st petitioner as a teacher. By selling 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments of the 1^st petitioner for an amount of ₹2,00,000/- he purchased 50 cents of property in the joint name. The balance sale consideration for the said property was paid by him. He was employed abroad for three years from 1995 and was sending amounts from there in the name of the 1^st petitioner. In 1998, he returned from abroad and engaged in construction field and he purchased and sold various items of properties. The car loan was availed by the 1st petitioner and when she committed default in repayment of loan, the car was sold. She has not discharged any debt of the respondent as alleged. In 2012, he again went abroad for job. The amount sent by him from abroad for discharging the debt and for remittance in chitty were appropriated by the 1^st petitioner. She also collected ₹5,50,000/- due to the respondent. When the respondent was abroad, 1^st petitioner maintained illicit relationship with one Narayanan and she eloped with him. Thereafter, on 29.2.2016 she married the said Narayanan. She is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.

5. The Family Court tried the said OP along with three connected matters between the same parties. The evidence comprises of the oral testimonies of PW1, RW1 , RW2 and documents