Misappropriation of marital assets leads to liability for their return in matrimonial disputes.

JUDGMENT

M.B.Snehalatha, J This appeal has been filed by the appellant/husband challenging the judgment and decree in O.P.No.588/2018 of Family Court, Ottapalam.

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

3. Petition was filed by the wife and children of the respondent contending as follows:

The marriage between the 1st petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 26.2.2006 as per Islamic rites. Petitioners 2 to 4 are the minor children born in the said wedlock. At the time of marriage, 1^st petitioner was given 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments. After fixing the marriage, petitioner's father had entrusted an amount of ₹2,50,000/- to the respondent and his father. After the marriage, while the 1^st petitioner was residing at the matrimonial home as insisted by the mother and sister of the respondent, 1^st petitioner entrusted all her gold ornaments except the Mehr chain, two bangles and a pair of studs to them with the knowledge of the respondent. After two years of marriage, when the Mat.A No.142 of 2024 4 respondent wanted to start a business, 1^st petitioner demanded back the gold ornaments from the mother-in-law and sister-in-law. But they refused to return the gold ornaments. 1^st petitioner borrowed a sum of ₹1 lakh from her father and gave it to the respondent to start a new business. Though he started a business, it ended in loss. In the meantime, respondent got back the gold ornaments from his mother and sister and thereafter sold 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments of the 1^st petitioner and purchased 18 cents of property in his name. Subsequently, he sold away the said property for an amount of ₹5,50,000/-. Thereafter in 2014, by using the said sale consideration and also by selling 4 sovereigns of gold ornaments of the children, respondent constructed a house in the property which was allotted to his share from his family property. 1^st petitioner’s brothers had also financially helped the respondent for the construction of the said house and had given household articles worth ₹2,50,000/-. Respondent sold away the remaining gold ornaments of the 1^st petitioner and started a bag manufacturing unit at Valanchery. Later, in the month of June 2018, he married another woman named Muneera without the knowledge and consent of the 1^st petitioner. When the life of the 1^st petitioner in the matrimonial home was in danger, she along with the children, left the matrimonial home on 5.9.2018. Respondent is not providing any maintenance to the petitioners. Respondent is liable to Mat.A No.142 of 2024 5 return the 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments described as 'A' schedule in the petition. She is entitled to get back ₹6 lakhs given to the respondent. Future maintenance at the rate of ₹10,000/- per month for the 1^st petitioner, ₹7,500/- each for petitioners 2 and 3 and ₹5,000/- per month for the 4^th petitioner was also claimed by her.

4. Respondent filed counter admitting the marriage and the birth of the children in the said wedlock. But he denied the claim for 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹6 lakhs of the 1^st petitioner. Respondent has not taken the gold ornaments of the 1^st petitioner. Respondent is conducting a bag manufacturing unit in a small room at Valanchery. The case of the 1^st petitioner that she had 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments is false. She had only 8 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage and the said gold ornaments were in her own possession. Her parents had no financial capacity to give 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Respondent has not received any amount from the family of the 1^st petitioner, as alleged. 1^st petitioner had demanded the respondent to transfer his