The court upheld the validity of a decree for the return of gold ornaments based on insufficient counter-evidence and adequate testimonial support from the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

M.B.Snehalatha, J This appeal has been filed by the appellants/respondents challenging the judgment and decree in O.P.No.743/2013 of Family Court, Irinjalakuda.

2. The parties shall be referred to by their rank in the Original Petition.

3. The wife filed the Original petition contending as follows:

The marriage of the petitioner with Girish Kumar, who is the son of respondents 1 and 2, was solemnised on 16.1.2004 in accordance with the Hindu religious rites. At the time of marriage, petitioner was given 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments by her parents. After the marriage while she was residing in the matrimonial home, she entrusted her 23 sovereigns of st gold ornaments with the 1 respondent, as insisted by respondents 1 and 2. After 15 days of the marriage, the husband of the petitioner went abroad for job. In 2006, he left his job abroad and came back. In 2007, petitioner's husband Girish Kumar died in a motor vehicle accident. At the time when Girish Kumar died, the petitioner was pregnant and on 23.11.2007 she delivered a child. The respondents blamed the petitioner for the death of their son and they ousted her from the matrimonial home. In spite of repeated demands, respondents have not returned her 23 sovereigns of gold ornaments entrusted with them. Hence, the petition was filed seeking return of 23 sovereigns of gold ornaments.

st

4. During the pendency of the Original Petition 1 respondent died.

His legal heirs were impleaded as additional respondents 3 and 4.

5. Respondents filed counter admitting the marriage. But they denied the case of the petitioner that at the time of marriage she was given 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments from her house. Petitioner had brought only nominal gold ornaments from her house and the respondents are not aware of its weight. The gold ornaments of the petitioner including 12 sovereigns of gold ornaments gifted by Girish Kumar are in the possession of the petitioner herself. Petitioner has not entrusted any gold ornaments with the 1^st respondent as alleged. After the death of Girish Kumar, the parents of the petitioner took her to her parental home. Petitioner has filed this petition suppressing the partition suit filed by her and the claim petition filed by her as O.P.(MV)No.983/2009. Respondents are not liable to return any gold ornaments to the petitioner.

6. The evidence consists of the oral testimonies of PW1 and PW2, RW1 and RW2 and the documents marked as Exts.A1 to A11 and Exts.B1 to B5.

7. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Family Court granted a decree in favour of the petitioner to realise 23 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the respondents. Assailing the judgment and decree, the respondents have preferred this appeal, contending that the Family Court went wrong in granting a decree in favour of the petitioner; that the Family Court has not analysed the evidence in its correct perspective. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that there is no acceptable evidence to show that the petitioner had 23 sovereigns of gold ornaments and there is no evidence regarding entrustment of said gold ornaments and therefore the Family Court went wrong in granting a decree in favour of the petitioner.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is ample evidence before the Court to show that the petitioner had 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and the misappropriation of her entire gold ornaments by the respondents 1 and 2 and therefore there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree.

9. The point for consideration is whether the impugned judgment and decree warrants any interference by this Court.

10.The petitioner, who was examined as PW1, has testified in