The court emphasized the need for further evidence on maintenance claims and recognized admissions that negated property recovery requests.

Sathish Ninan, J.

The original petition filed by the wife and daughter against the husband and in-laws, seeking the reliefs for return of gold and money, declaring a conveyance to be sham, and for maintenance, was decreed for maintenance alone. Challenging the refusal of the reliefs, the wife and daughter filed Mat. Appeal No.650 of 2016. Challenging the quantum of maintenance ordered, the husband is in appeal in Mat. Appeal No.734/2016.

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 15.12.2003. In the wedlock, the second petitioner was born on 04.11.2004. They have been living separately since the year 2005. The petitioner's claim is that, at the time of marriage she was provided with 151 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹ 1 lakh. Claim is made for return of the same. She has also claimed Mat. Appeal Nos.734 of 2016 & 650 of 2016 maintenance at the rate of ₹ 10,000/- for herself and ₹ 5,000/- for the second petitioner child.

3. The respondent contended that the first petitioner had only 101 sovereigns of gold ornaments and that the ornaments are with the petitioner herself. The claim regarding payment of ₹ 1 lakh and maintenance were denied.

4. The Family Court held that the quantity of gold ornaments that the petitioner had was only 101 sovereigns and that the same are in her possession. The allegation of misappropriation of money was also negatived. Taking note of the maintenance ordered in the proceedings under Domestic Violence Act and in MC proceedings, the court awarded ₹ 1,500/- each to the petitioners.

5. We have heard learned counsel on either side.

6. With regard to the claim of gold, Ext.A2 certificate from the SNDP Sakha Yogam and Ext.B3 written statement filed by the first petitioner in OP 390/2005, clinches the issue regarding quantum. Therein the petitioner has admitted the quantity of gold ornaments as 101 sovereigns. The Family Court was right in holding the quantity accordingly.

Mat. Appeal Nos.734 of 2016 &

650 of 2016

7. The first petitioner, while being examined before the Family Court, Kollam in OP 390/2005 and in OP 584/2005, categorically admitted that the gold and fixed deposit belonging to her were returned to her. The relevant admissions read thus, “ടടി കകാശശ് 05/08/2005-ൽ നടിങ്ങളളുടട പപേരടിപലേയശ്യശ് ഒഴടിഞഞ്ഞുമകാറടിയ പരഖകളളുളും FD രസസീതഞ്ഞുകളളുളും സസ്വർണകാഭരണങ്ങളളുളും വനടിതകാടസലടിൽ വചശ് നടിങ്ങൾയശ് A കകമകാറടിയടിരഞ്ഞുനഞ്ഞുപലകാ ? :- അടത. ഞങ്ങൾ സസ്വർണവഞ്ഞുളും കകാശഞ്ഞുളും ഒനഞ്ഞുളും ആവശശ്യടപ്പെടടില. FD ഭർതകാവശ് തടിരടിചശ് ഏൽപ്പെടിയഞ്ഞുകയകായടിരഞ്ഞുനഞ്ഞു. പപേകകാരമഞ്ഞുള്ള തഞ്ഞുക ഞകാൻ പേടിൻവലേടിചളു …… FD പേടിതകാവടിടന ഏൽപ്പെടിചളു ...…. -യഞ്ഞുളും ബകായടിയഞ്ഞുള്ള സസ്വർണവഞ്ഞുളും എടന്റെ കകയടിൽ തനഞ്ഞു. ഞങ്ങൾ ആവശശ്യടപ്പെടകാടത ഞങ്ങളളുടട കകയടിൽ അടടിപചൽപ്പെടിയഞ്ഞുകയകാണഞ്ഞുണകായതശ്.”

In the light of the categoric admission, the claim for gold and money was rightly negatived by the Family Court.

8. The claim for gold and money having been negatived, the further contention that the conveyance of the property belonging to the husband in the name of the third respondent is sham and intended to defeat the petitioner’s claim, does not arise for consideration at all.

9. Now coming to the claim for maintenance, it is not in dispute that there is already an award of maintenance in two other proceedings, one under Domestic Violence Act and the other Mat. Appeal Nos.734 of 2016 & 650 of 2016 under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The family Court noticed that though the petitioners claim that the husband is the owner of the Super Market, no evidence is adduced to prove the same. Though the husband relied on Ext.B8 salary slip to contend that he is only the sales man in the shop, the court found that the said argument cannot be relied upon. It is thereafter that the court proceeded to award an amount of ₹ 1,500/- each per month to the pet