IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1941
Mat.Appeal.No. 77 of 2011
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 145/2010 of FAMILY COURT,
MALAPPURAM DATED 22-10-2010
APPELLANT/S:
PARAMBIL APPUKUTTAN
AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.SANKARAN, PARAMBIL HOUSE,,
P.O.VALLIKUNNU,
VIA KADALUNDI NAGARAM,, THIRURANGADI TALUK,
VALLIKUNNU AMSOM DESOM,, PARAPPANANGADI.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI
SMT.C.G.PREETHA
SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR
SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN
SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE(MULLAKKARIYIL)
SRI.K.RATHISH KUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
PAROL KRISHNAN
AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, PAROL HOUSE, PO
PULLIPPARAMBU, VIA CHELAMBRA, TIRURANGADI TALUK,
CHELEMBRA, AMSOM DESOM, THENHIPALAM-695666.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU S. NAIR
SRI.K.RAKESH
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.05.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal.No. 77 of 2011
2
JUDGMENT
A.M.Shaffique, J
This appeal has been filed by the petitioner in O.P.No.
145/2010 of the Family Court, Malappuram, by which his
claim for value of 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments and the
value of utensils and Almirah had been rejected.
2. The petitioner contended that his daughter was
given in marriage to the respondent. The marriage was
solemnized on 20.03.2005. This is the second marriage of
both the persons. His daughter consumed poison on
25.05.2007 in the matrimonial home and she died on
05.06.2007, while undergoing treatment in the Medical
College Hospital, Calicut. He had registered a case against
the respondent under Sections 498A and Section306 IPC. It is found
that he was not guilty and he was acquitted.
3. According to the petitioner, at the time of marriage
he had given his daughter 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments
Mat.Appeal.No. 77 of 2011
3
and utensils worth Rs.35,000/-. According to him, the gold
and utensils were appropriated by the respondent. That apart
he purchased an almirah worth Rs.15,000/- which was also
appropriated by the respondent. Though attempts were made
to return the gold ornaments and the household items through
mediators, the respondent did not agree with the same and
accordingly this petition was filed.
4. Respondent in his objection having admitting the
marriage contended that she did not have 40 sovereigns of
gold ornaments nor have they given any utensils worth
Rs.35,000/- or the almirah as alleged. Before the Family
Court, three witnesses are examined on behalf of the
petitioner as PW1 to PW3 and respondent was examined as
RW1. Exhibits A1 to A6 were the documents produced. The
Family Court found that the petitioner was unable to prove
that so much quantity of gold ornaments were given as
parental share and there was no evidence to prove that the
utensils worth Rs.35,000/- or almirah worth Rs.15,000/- was
given to the respondent. Accordingly, the petition had been
dismissed.
Mat.Appeal.No. 77 of 2011
4
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the court below had taken a hypertechnical view in the matter.
Exhibit-A1 bill has been produced to indicate that the gold
ornaments were made by PW3. The court below wrongly
observed that there was discrepancy in the oral testimony of
PW1 and PW2 and that of PW3. If Exhibit-A1 bill is believed,
there is evidence to prove that 40 sovereigns of gold
ornaments were given at the time of marriage.
6. This is a case in which father of the wife, who later
died, makes a claim for return of gold ornaments and value of
utensils. The husband, who is the respondent herein, had
denied having been entrusted with any gold ornaments or
such utensils. Apparently, this is the 2nd marriage of the
husband and wife. They did not have any children in their
wedlock.
7. A claim for return of gold ornaments can be made
only if there is proof of entrustment of gold ornaments or
appropriation of the same by the husband. Father of the bride
cannot say that the gold ornaments were entrusted to the
Mat.Appeal.No. 77 of 2011
5
respondent. In the absence of any proof regarding
entrustment of gold ornaments, utensils or household articles,
it may not be possible to grant a decree in that regard.
Therefore, even assuming that some gold ornaments were
given to the petitioner’s daughter at the time of marriage, in
the absence of any evidence to prove when and where the
entrustment was made, it may not be possible for this Court to
grant any relief, directly return of the same.
In such circumstances, we are of the view that no
direction can be issued. Even otherwise, according to the
Family Court, there is no evidence to prove that so much gold
ornaments were given to the daughter of the petitioner at the
time of marriage. We do not find any ground to interfere with
the said judgment and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
N.ANIL KUMAR
Dxy JUDGE
