The court affirmed the Family Court's decision to return gold ornaments and cash based on credible evidence supporting the petitioner's claims.

JUDGMENT

M.B.Snehalatha, J This appeal has been filed by the appellant/2^nd respondent in O.P.No.108/2019 of Family Court, Kannur, challenging the judgment and decree for return of gold ornaments and money passed against her.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to by their rank in the Original Petition.

3. The averments made in the OP in brief are as follows:

4. Petitioner is the wife of 1^st respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 28.09.2008 in accordance with Hindu religious rites. 2^nd respondent is the mother of 1^st respondent. In the said wedlock, a child was born to them. At the time of marriage, petitioner was given 55 sovereigns of gold ornaments by her parents. After two days of the marriage, except for five sovereigns of gold ornaments used for her normal wear, she entrusted all her gold ornaments with the 2^nd respondent/mother-in-law. After the marriage, while R1 was returning to his workplace abroad, he sold a gold chain weighing 5 sovereigns of the petitioner. 1^st respondent demanded the petitioner to bring a sum of ₹3 lakhs from her house to meet the expenses for taking her abroad. Accordingly, petitioner's mother entrusted ₹3 lakhs with the 2^nd respondent. Though R1 took the petitioner to his workplace abroad, he ill-treated the petitioner. When the 1^st respondent made a further demand for landed property in his name, the mother and the relatives of the petitioner decided to construct a residential building for the petitioner in her parental property and they took steps for the same and stocked construction materials. But R1 insisted for transferring the landed property in his name and on 21.02.2016, he stealthily took away the construction materials kept in the work site and respondents used the said construction materials for the construction of a compound wall in their property. Respondents are liable to return the 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the petitioner and Rs.5 lakhs.

5. Respondents filed counter denying and disputing the case of the petitioner. Though the marriage and birth of the child are admitted, they denied the allegation of cruelty. They denied the case of the petitioner that she was given 55 sovereigns of gold ornaments from her house at the time of marriage. Likewise, they also denied petitioner's case that her entire gold ornaments were kept in the custody of the 2^nd respondent and they misappropriated it. They also denied the case of the petitioner that R1 demanded a sum of Rs.3 lakhs from her mother for taking the petitioner abroad and her mother entrusted Rs.3 lakhs with R2. Respondents also denied petitioner's case that R1 took away the construction materials worth Rs.2 lakhs.

6. Evidence consist of the oral testimonies of PW1 and PW2, RW1 and RW2 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A8.

7. After trial, the learned Family Court granted a decree directing both the respondents to return the petition schedule gold ornaments weighing 50 sovereigns and Rs.5 lakhs to the petitioner.

8. Assailing the said judgment and decree, the 2^nd respondent in the O.P/mother-in-law has preferred this appeal on the ground that the Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective; that the Family Court went wrong in granting a decree for return of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of Rs.5 lakhs without any acceptable and reliable evidence and therefore, the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal.

9. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in O.P/wife submitted that the Family Court has analyzed the evidence and the materials on record in its correct perspective and therefore, there are no reasons to interfe