SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sanil Kumar.C vs Sanil Kumar.C on 29 October, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1941

Mat.Appeal.No.529 OF 2013

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09-05-2013 IN OP NO.141/2009 OF FAMILY
COURT, KANNUR

APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT:

SANIL KUMAR.C.,
AGED 29 YEARS,S/O.MARANKAVIL KANNAN,CHOORIKKADAM
HOUSE,KUNIYAN,KARIVELLUR P.O,KANNUR DT

BY ADVS.SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)
SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH

RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER:

REMYA.P.,
AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,REMYA NIVAS,MONACHA,
UPPILAKAI P.O, PIN 671 314,PUTHUKAI AMSOM, HOSDURG
TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE
SRI.RAHUL SASI

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.No.529/2013

-:2:-

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29th day of October 2019

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

Appeal is filed by the respondent in O.P. No.141 of

2009 of the Family Court, Kannur. Original petition was

filed by the respondent seeking return of 32 sovereigns

of gold ornaments. Her case was that the marriage was

solemnized on 29.04.2007. Initially, the marital life

went smoothly for about 2½ months. Thereafter, she was

ill-treated. The respondent was a drunkard and cruelty

was meted out against her. She further contended that at

the time of marriage, she was having 32 sovereigns of

gold ornaments, which were all taken away and

appropriated by the respondent. Thereafter, there was

demand for more dowry. On 17.11.2007, he came house
intoxicated and demanded Rs.5,00,000/-. When she

expressed her inability, she was manhandled. Some or how,

she escaped from his clutches. On 18.11.2007, she was

taken to her house and she was asked to make arrangement

for the money. While they were proceeding to her house in

a scooter, she was pushed down. She sustained severe

injuries and sought for treatment. Police registered a

case against the respondent under Section 498A of the

Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the respondent did not

enquire about her. They got separated and thereafter she
M.A.No.529/2013

-:3:-

filed the above case.

2. The respondent denied the allegations.

According to him, he is not a drunkard and he had not

assaulted her in any manner. He never demanded any dowry

and he did not know nature of gold ornaments she had at

the time of marriage.

3. Before the Family Court the above case was

heard along with O.P. No.610 of 2012, filed by the wife

for dissolution of marriage. Common evidence was taken.

PW.1 and PW.2 were examined on the side of the petitioner

and they relied upon Exts.A1 to A7. The respondent was

examined as RW.1. The Family Court after considering the

evidence, held that the fact that the petitioner had 32

sovereigns of gold ornaments is proved by her testimony

as well as the testimony of her father. They produced

Ext.A1, an estimate of the jewellery and also the
photographs of the marriage. From the aforesaid

documents, it is rather clear that she was having

sufficient quantity of gold ornaments. Even otherwise,

the respondent does not have a case that she did not have

such quantity of gold ornaments.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the

respondent that the husband was not aware of the quantity

of gold ornaments the wife had at the time of marriage.

Such a contention cannot be believed. In any case where a

bride is taken to the marital home the husband or his
M.A.No.529/2013

-:4:-

parents will be knowing about the quantity of the gold

ornaments, the bride had adorned at the time marriage.

Failure to disclose such particulars, amounts to

concealment of the material facts.

5. As regards the appropriation, it is clearly

spoken to by PW.1. That apart, the facts involved in the

case would disclose that he had even tried to endanger

her life by pushing her down from the scooter. The copy

of the First Information Report in which the crime has

been registered has been produced in the case. Having

regard to the above factual situation, this is a case in

which the petitioner’s version is believable and

therefore, the Family Court was justified in granting a

decree. We don’t find any grounds to interfere with the

finding of the Family Court.

Mat. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand

closed.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE,JUDGE

Sd/-

T.V.ANILKUMAR,JUDGE
DST //True copy//

P.A.To 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