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

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN MONDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 21ST MAGHA, 1946 MAT.APPEAL NO. 591 OF 2014 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.02.2014 IN OP NO.1423 OF 2005 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 SHANTO, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O KURIYAPPU, THARAYI HOUSE, CHERUKADAPRAM KARA, PUTHENVELIKKARA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

2 THREESIAMMA, AGED 70 YEARS W/O KURIYAPPU, THARAYIL HOUSE, CHERUKADAPRAM KARA, VADAKE KUTHIYATHODU PO, PUTHENVELIKKARA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

SHIJI, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O SHANTO, D/O THOMAS, CHIRAYATHU HOUSE, DESOM KARA, CHENGAMANADU VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 683 103.

BY ADV SRI.K.R.VINOD THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 10.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

SATHISH NINAN & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.

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

Dated this the 10^th day of February, 2025

JUDGMENT

Sathish Ninan, J.

The original petition filed by the wife against the husband and his mother before the Family Court, for recovery of gold and money, was decreed in part. Challenging the decree, the husband and the mother are in appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are herein after referred to as “the husband”, “the wife”, and “the mother”.

2. The marriage between the husband and wife was solemnised on 18.02.1996. According to the wife, in connection with the marriage she was provided with 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as patrimony, by her parents. The gold and patrimony were entrusted with the husband and his mother. Two children were born in the wedlock. Her parents had gifted 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the children on various occasions. It is alleged that the respondents sold the gold ornaments and misappropriated the said amount, and also the patrimony of Rs.2,00,000/-. The parties fell apart. The original petition was filed seeking recovery of the patrimony of Rs.2,00,000/- and also the value of 55 sovereigns of gold ornaments.

3. The husband filed objections contending that he is not aware about the quantity of gold ornaments that belonged to the wife. He denied the averment that Rs.2,00,000/- was given as patrimony. He denied the claim of the wife that 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments were provided by her parents to their children. The alleged misappropriation of the gold and money, was also denied. It was also contended that, whatever ornaments the wife had, was taken away by her when she returned to her parental home.

4. The mother remained ex parte.

5. The Family Court granted a decree for recovery of patrimony of Rs.2,00,000/- and also the value of 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The claim that the children were provided with 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments was held against by the Family Court for lack of evidence. There is no appeal by the wife and hence, it has become final.

6. We have heard Shri.C. Varghese Kuriakose, the learned counsel for the appellants and Shri.K.R. Vinod, the learned counsel for the respondent.

7. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are:

i) Does the decree of the Family Court for 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments warrant an interference?

ii) Is the decree of the Family Court for recovery of patrimony supported by evidence?

Iii) Does the decree and judgment of the Family Court warrant any interference?

8. Shri.C. Varghese Kuriakose, the learned counsel for the appellants, would argue that there is no proper plea of entrustment of gold and money; the plea and evidence are contradictory. There is no evidence to prove the quantity of gold which the wife had. The marriage was a love marriage, and the claim that the patrimony was provided, especially given the background of the case, is highly improbable. The entire claim is without any bo