IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN &

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA FRIDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2020 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.648 OF 2015 OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

RUBEENA AGED 32 YEARS D/O ALI MUHAMMED BAPPU, CHEKUTTY ALIKKANAKATH HOUSE, PARIYAPURAM, PACHATTIRI.P.O, VETTAM VILLAGE, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676552.

BY ADVS.

DEEPA NARAYANAN SMT.ASHA MARIAM MATHEWS RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:

1 SAMEER, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.ABOOBACKER, ARAKKAL HOUSE, OTHALUR.P.O, KALADI VILLAGE, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679534.

2 ABOOBACKER, AGED 62 YEARS ARAKKAL HOUSE, OTHALUR.P.O, KALADI VILLAGE, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679534.

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 8.4.2025, THE COURT ON 11.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & M.B.SNEHALATHA, JJ.

-------------------------------------------

Mat.Appeal No.23 of 2020 -------------------------------------------

Dated, this the 11^th April 2025

JUDGMENT

M.B.Snehalatha.J In this appeal, appellant challenges the correctness of the judgment and decree of the Family Court, Tirur which declined her claim for return of gold ornaments and cash from the respondents.

2. The parties shall be referred to by their rank in O.P.No.648/2015.

3. The wife filed the Original Petition contending as follows: The marriage of the petitioner and the 1^st respondent was solemnized on 11.8.2003. Three children were born in the said wedlock. At the time of marriage, petitioner was given 200 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of ₹2 lakhs by her parents. Out of the said 200 sovereigns of gold ornaments, excluding 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments used by the petitioner for her regular wear, the remaining 185 sovereigns of gold ornaments were kept by the 2^nd respondent for safekeeping. After two weeks of the marriage, 2^nd respondent sold 150 sovereigns of gold ornaments of the petitioner at 'Majestic Jewellery', Tirur. After one month of the marriage, petitioner had gone abroad to renew her visa and came back. After four months, she again went abroad to reside with the 1^st respondent who was employed there. After the delivery of the 1^st child, 1^st respondent body shamed the petitioner and harassed her by complaining that she is too fat. 1^st respondent also harassed her demanding more gold and cash. Subsequent to the marriage, 1^st respondent demanded more money and accordingly petitioner's father had given ₹3 lakhs to the 1^st respondent. Petitioner is entitled to get back her 185 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the 2^nd respondent. She also claims return of ₹5 lakhs given to the 1^st respondent.

4. Respondents filed counter denying the claim made by the petitioner and contended that they have not misappropriated or sold any gold ornaments of the petitioner. They denied the case of the petitioner that she had 200 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage. Respondents have no knowledge about the quantity of gold ornaments worn by the petitioner on the wedding day. Respondents have not received any cash from the petitioner's father as alleged. There was no ill treatment and harassment as alleged by the petitioner. 12 cents of property owned by the 1^st respondent's mother was transferred by his mother in the joint name of the petitioner and 1^st respondent out of love and affection without receiving any consideration. Respondents have not misappropriated any gold or cash of the petitioner and 2^nd respondent has not sold any gold ornaments as alleged. The entire gold ornaments of the petitioner are with her and respondents are not liable to return any gold or cash.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of dismissal of her claim of gold and cash, the petitioner has preferred this appeal contending that the learned Family Court has not analysed the evidence in its correct perspective; that the finding of the Family Court that there is n