Claims regarding marital assets and maintenance are to be substantiated by credible evidence, allowing for equitable relief based on factual findings.

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

The above appeals and the revision petition arise from the common order passed by the Family Court, Thrissur in O.P. No.1171/2012, O.P. No.1944/2012 and M.C. No.683/2012. The appellant is the husband of Mumtaz Beegum, who is one of the respondents in the above proceedings. O.P. No.1944/2012 was filed by Mumtaz Beegum (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent”) seeking return of money and gold, as well as past maintenance. M.C. No.683/2012 was instituted by the respondent claiming future maintenance. O.P. No.1171/2012 was filed by the appellant seeking return of gold ornaments and money allegedly given by him to his wife, the respondent.

2. By the impugned common order, the trial court dismissed O.P. No.1171/2012 and allowed O.P. No.1944/2012, thereby directing the appellant to return 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments, the petition schedule household articles, and Rs.50,000/- to the respondent. The court also awarded past and future maintenance to her at the rate of Rs.4,000/-

per month.

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the above appeals and the revision petition are as follows: The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 11.08.1999. The respondent contended that at the time of marriage she was given 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.50,000/- by her parents. When she went to the matrimonial home, she was provided with household articles worth Rs.30,000/-. Out of the said gold ornaments, 40 sovereigns were allegedly taken by the appellant and his mother, who held the same in trust. It is further alleged that the ornaments were sold for the purpose of purchasing an autorickshaw for the appellant and for constructing a residential building. After the marriage, the respondent entrusted Rs.50,000/- with the appellant.

4. The respondent further contended that owing to the ill-treatment meted out to her by the appellant, she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home, and that she is therefore entitled to recover the gold ornaments, money and household articles. She also claimed past and future maintenance on the ground that she is unable to maintain herself and that the appellant has sufficient means to provide the amount sought.

5. These allegations were denied by the appellant.

According to him, no gold ornaments or money were given to him by the respondent. He denied misappropriating either the money or the gold ornaments and refuted all allegations raised against him. He further set up a claim that he is entitled to recover 16 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.5,00,000/- allegedly given by him to the respondent. The appellant also denied his liability to pay maintenance.

6. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 to PW3 and RW1 and RW2, together with documentary evidence marked as Exts.A1 to A5 and B1 series to B4.

7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides.

8. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the respondent is entitled to recover gold ornaments and money as ordered by the trial court from the appellant and his mother.

9. According to the respondent, she possessed 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage and entrusted the entire ornaments to the appellant and his mother soon thereafter. She was examined before the court and deposed consistently with her claim. The appellant, however, contended that the respondent did not possess all the ornaments listed in the petition. In the counter statement, it is stated as follows:

‘

ഹരജജി പടജികയജിൽ ചചേർത്ത സസ്വർണണ്ണാഭരണങ്ങളുടടെ ലജിസസ്റ്റ് ശരജിയല. അപ്രകണ്ണാരരം സസ്വർണണ്ണാഭരങ്ങൾ ഹരജജികണ്ണാരജിക്കു ലഭജിചജിടജില. പടജികയജിൽ ചചേർത്ത പ്രകണ്ണാരരം അരപ്പട, തടെവള, മണ്ണാടജി എനജിവ ഹരജജ