IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN &

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THURSDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 17TH MAGHA, 1946 MAT.APPEAL NO. 432 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.07.2014 IN OP NO.577 OF 2012 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

JULY AGED 23 YEARS, D/O.BABU, BABU NIVAS, MUDAVARAM, MUTHRANIKETHAN PO, VELLANADU, VELLANADU VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD.

BY ADV SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

GIREESH AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.CLEMENT, GIREESH BHAVAN, CONVENT ROAD, NEAR CONVENT JUNCTION, ARYANADU PO, CHULLIMANOOR, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY ADV SRI.T.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 06.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

SATHISH NINAN & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2025

JUDGMENT

Sathish Ninan, J.

The original petition filed by the wife against the husband, for return of gold and money, was decreed in part by the Family Court. Challenging that part of the decree which refused relief to the wife, she is in appeal.

2. The marriage between the parties was on

30.08.2010. It is the case of the wife that, at the time of marriage she was provided with 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for purchase of the property in the joint names of husband and wife. However, the husband got the property purchased by in his name. It is also claimed that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was given to the husband towards marriage expenses. Subsequently, to enable the husband to discharge some debts incurred by him, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was also provided. The relationship between the parties got strained and accordingly the original petition was filed seeking recovery of gold and money.

3. The husband filed objections contending that he is not aware of the quantity of gold ornaments that belonged to the wife. It was contended that, whatsoever gold ornaments belonged to the wife was kept by her and not him. The receipt of any amounts as alleged by the wife was denied.

4. The Family Court upheld the claim for gold ornaments. However, the claim for money was disallowed for lack of evidence. Though the husband had filed an appeal before this Court as Mat App.No.749 of 2014, the same was dismissed as not pressed on the submission of the counsel.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-wife.

6. The point that arises for determination is;

“Is the finding of the Family Court that there is lack of evidence with regard to the claim of the wife for money, sustainable on the materials?

7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claim by the wife for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head marriage expense is not being pursued.

8. The wife has claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as having been given to the husband for purchase of a property in the joint names of husband and wife in connection with the marriage. The marriage between the parties was on 30.08.2010. The husband while examined as PW1, in cross examination, admitted the purchase of a property on 31.08.2010, i.e., on the very next day of the marriage. The wife has produced Ext.A6 copy of the Bank account statement which shows that on 27.08.2010, an amount of Rs.6,18,000/- was withdrawn from her father’s account. The payment of such amount has been deposed to by the wife as PW1 and her father as PW3.

9. Though the Family Court held that there is no evidence to prove the payment of the said amount, the circumstances as noticed above, coupled with the withdrawal of amounts as revealed by Ext.A6 Bank account statement, was omitted to be considered by the Family Court. The mere fact that the wife deposed that the amount was paid in June or July, 2010, by itself is insignificant since both PW1 and PW3 have deposed that the amount was given prior to the marria