Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
JOY T.J – Appellant
Versus
MARY ROSE – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contention on evidence and funds withdrawal in joint accounts (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. overview of evidence and claims regarding patrimony (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. testimony highlighting the illegal appropriation of funds (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's rejection of defense arguments and support for family court's ruling (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. final decision on the appeal (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.
The appellants assail the judgment of the learned Family Court, Thrissur, in OP No.693/2017, since it has directed them to pay the respondent, an amount of Rs.30 lakhs, along with interest at the rate of 6% from 06.07.2014 till the date of realization, finding it to be her patrimony.
2. Sri.Rejit – learned counsel for the appellants, argued that the findings of the learned Family Court are based on no cogent evidence at all, but on mere surmises and conjectures and hence lacks forensic support. He contended that the evidence of RW1 and RW2, namely that of the appellants herein, establishes that no amounts had been received by them from the respondent and that a sum of Rs.30 lakhs was, in fact, used by her for her own benefit, though now been sought to be rec
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
