MANEESHA SUSAN MATHEW vs BIJOY C ANDREWS @ ANIYANKUNJU - 2024-01-16

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The High Court disposed of the matrimonial appeal on the following terms:-

“30. As regards the claim for return of an almirah or its value, RW1 himself admitted that the almirah is still remaining in his house. In view of the admission from the part of PW1 himself, the Family Court is justified in granting a decree to return the almirah or Rs.4,000/- as its value. Thus, we further find that the appellants are liable to pay Rs.3,00,000/- only to the respondent and they are not liable to return 70 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value.

1) The decree and judgment allowing the respondent to realise Rs.9,00,000/- with interest at 9% will stand reduced to Rs.3,00,000/- with 9% interest from the date of suit and (2) the decree allowing to realise 70 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its approximate value of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest will stand set aside. (3) The decree directing the appellants to return the almirah and in default the respondent is allowed to realise Rs.4,000/- would stand confirmed.”

The wife is before this Court challenging the order of the High Court and wanting a restoration of the order passed by the Family Court. During the pendency of this petition, learned counsel for the respondent – husband came up with an offer that in addition to Rs.3,00,000/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of the suit as recorded in Clause 1 of para 30 of the High Court’s order, the respondent is ready and willing to pay additionally Rs.3,00,000/- in lieu of Clause 2 where the High Court had set aside the order to relise 70 sovereigns of gold ornaments or pay an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. Further, the respondent – husband has also agreed to pay Rs.4,000/- for the almirah as mentioned in Clause 3 of the High Court order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner – wife has sought to make submissions referring to some pleadings before the court’s below.

However, having perused the same, we are of the view that the order of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity inasmuch as no evidence was led to establish possession of 70 sovereigns with the respondent – husband. In the circumstances, we find that the offer given by the respondent – husband seems to be reasonable and fair and to that extent we modify the impugned order of the High Court. According to the learned counsel for the respondent – husband, the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of the suit has already been deposited with the Trial Court and if any amount is short, the same would be deposited within the next four weeks. Further, an additional amount of Rs.3,00,000/- would also be deposited before the Trial Court and he would further deposit Rs.4,000/- also within four weeks from today.

The petitioner would be at liberty to withdraw the entire amount deposited with the Trial Court as recorded above and the Trial Court will immediately, upon request being made, release the entire amount in favour of the petitioner.

The petition stands disposed of as above.

Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.

(NEETA SAPRA) (RANJANA SHAILEY)

COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)