SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Parambil Appukuttan vs Parol Krishnan on 27 May, 2019

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation