Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SATHISH NINAN, P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ
MANESH KRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
PARVATHY UNNITHAN – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims regarding marriage-related property can be legally enforced. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. family court's commendations need substantial support through evidential documentation. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. assessing the genuineness of presented evidence is critical for substantiating claims. (Para 6 , 8 , 12) |
| 4. potential liabilities in matrimonial property claims can extend to family members. (Para 15 , 17) |
Sathish Ninan, J.
The decree for gold and money, in an original petition filed by the wife against the husband and in-laws, is under challenge by the respondents.
2. The first respondent in the original petition is the husband, the second respondent is his mother, the third respondent his brother, and the 4th respondent is his father. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 05.05.2011. During that time, the petitioner was employed at Ireland. According to her, at the time of marriage she was having 85 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It is her contention that, on the very next day of marriage, ie. on 06.05.2011, as was required by respondents 3 and 4, the petitioner entrusted her entire gold ornaments except a chain of two sovereigns, with respon
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
