2025:KER:27826 Mat.Appeal No.312/2015 ..1.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 312 OF 2015 ORDER DATED 21.11.2014 IN OA NO.156 OF 2012 OF FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: BIJU V.J., AGED 37 YEARS S/O.VARKEY,VADAKKEDATH VEETTIL, AVIDANALLUR P.O., KOORACHUNDU, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE-673 614. BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SMT.J.KASTHURI SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.SEBIN THOMAS SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: MARIYET, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.ALEX,KALLANICKAL VEETTIL, MATHAKKADAVU P.O., KOODARANJI, THIRUVAMBADI, KOZHIKODE-673 604. BY ADVS. SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN SRI.S.K.SAJU SMT.A.SIMI THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON 02.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:27826 Mat.Appeal No.312/2015 ..2.. JUDGMENT SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. The husband is the appellant. The appeal is filed challenging the impugned order dated 21.11.2014 in OA No.156 of 2012 on the files of the Family Court, Kozhikode, entitling the wife to recover from the husband and his assets 13½ sovereigns of gold ornaments and an amount of ₹2,00,000/-. The respondent is the wife. 2. For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, “husband” and “wife”. 3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13.09.2010. The wife claimed that she was given 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage, and an amount of ₹2,00,000/- was given to the husband two weeks prior to the marriage. According to her, out of the 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments, 14 were purchased and six were obtained as gifts from relatives. The wife alleged that the husband, who was a contractor of civil works, took all the gold ornaments except a gold ring of ½ sovereign. Immediately after the marriage, there was disharmony 2025:KER:27826 Mat.Appeal No.312/2015 ..3.. between the parties and the wife went to the parental home. Due to the intervention of the church priest, the wife returned to the matrimonial home. However, on account of the strained relationships, the wife again left the matrimonial home. OP is filed for realization of gold ornaments and money from the husband. 4. The husband denied the allegations that the wife was having 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments and that he was given ₹2,00,000/- two weeks before the marriage. According to him, most of the ornaments worn by the wife were imitation jewellery. He also denied the allegation that he misbehaved and quarrelled with the wife. It was further contended that the documents produced by the wife to support the purchase of gold ornaments are fabricated. He prayed for dismissal of the petition, contending that he purchased the “thali” chain and the wedding ring for the wife; and the wife was having only two bangles, a pair of anklets having 1½ sovereign and a stud of ½ sovereign. 5. The Family Court, on an appreciation of the entire evidence, decreed the petition entitling the wife to recover 13½ sovereigns of gold ornaments and an amount of ₹2,00,000/- from the husband. 2025:KER:27826 Mat.Appeal No.312/2015 ..4.. 6. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides. 7. The marriage between the parties on 13.09.2010 is admitted. According to the wife, the entire gold ornaments given to her at the time of marriage except a gold ring weighing ½ sovereign, were sold by the husband, who was engaged in civil works contract. It is also her case that an amount of ₹2,00,000/- was entrusted to the husband by her parents two weeks before marriage in the presence of two witnesses. In order to prove the claim for return of gold ornaments, the wife relied on Ext.A2 quotation bill issued from M.M.Jewellery, Thiruvambadi, and Ext.A6 series photographs. The wife was examined as PW1. During cross-examination, she deposed that, 14 sovereigns of gold ornaments were purchased from M.M.Jewellery, Thiruvambadi, and six were gifted by her relatives. She further deposed that Ext.A2 quotation bill was obtained from M.N.Jewellery to facilitate a gold loan from the Bank for the purpose of purchasing gold ornaments. The original of Ext.A2 was allegedly submitted to the Bank for availing gold loan. During cross-examination, it was admitted by the wife that some of the ornaments worn by her at the time of marriage were imitation ornaments taken from the beauty parlour, which were returned after marriage. The relevant statements of the wife during cross- 2025:KER:27826 Mat.Appeal No.312/2015 ..5.. examination are as follows: “Ext.A6(a) and (b) photo യയൽ കകണനതതലകല സസർണല അലലലക (Q). അല, Make up സകധനങളമണ. അതയൽ കകണന അരപടയല വളകളല കഴതയത" show മക" എനയവ make up centre -ൽ നയന തനതകണ, അവ പയന&ട തയരയച തകകടത (A). Ext.A6 ൽ കകണനതയൽ ഭരയഭകഗവല rold gold ആതണനല, അത ധരയചകണ നയങൾ ക"3കണതയന ഹകജരകതയന പറയന (Q). അതയൽ 20 പവത7 ആഭരണങൾ സസർണമകയയരന (A).” 8. A reading of the deposition of the wife reveals that she has stated the true facts during cross-examination. She has admitted that some of the ornaments worn at the time of marriage were imitation ornaments and she has specifically identified those items. She further added that, “അതയൽ 20 പവത7 ആഭരണങൾ സസർണമകയയരന”. Ext.A2 quotation is for 14 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It is the specific case of the wife that in order to purchase new gold ornaments, some old gold ornaments weighing 14 sovereigns were entrusted to the M.M.Jewellery for making new gold ornaments. The wife’s father was examined as PW2, who also deposed in tune with his daughter that 14 sovereigns of gold ornaments were purchased and six were gifted by family relatives. However, the husband denied that the wife had 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments. According to him, she had only two bangles, a pair of anklets having 1½ sovereign and a stud of ½ sovereign. He also contended that since there was a custom prevalent that the dress and gold ornaments are 2025:KER:27826 Mat.Appeal No.312/2015 ..6.. to be taken in the presence of the bride, the groom and their family members, they arrived at Chemmannur Jewellery on 08.09.2010, however, no gold ornaments were purchased by the wife’s family on that day, but enquired about the price of two bangles, a pair of anklets having 1½ sovereign and a stud of ½ sovereign. He claimed that he had purchased a “thali” chain of 29 grams and a wedding ring. 9. The husband had filed IA No. 1011 of 2013 before the Family Court to summon and examine the proprietor of M.M.Jewellery, Thiruvambadi, to disprove that the mother of the wife had purchased gold ornaments from that jewellery on 09.08.2010. Accordingly, the witness filed Ext.C1 statement as follows: “അനകടയ എന അന ചകണയ, മതകടവ എനവതര എനയക അറയയകല. അവർ എത7 സകപനതയത7 ഒര കസമർ ആണ. അവർ 9.8.2010 തയയതയ എത7 സകപനതയൽ നയനല സസർണകഭരണങൾ വകങയയയടയല. അവർ എത7 സകപനതയൽ കറച പഴയ സസർണകഭരണങൾ തകകണ വരയകയല അതയത7 തകല ലനകകയ തടകത7 പകൽ പതകയ പണയയകൻ തകകടകകയല തചയയടണ. ബകങയൽ നയനല ല"കൺ എടലകണ ആവശ3തയല"കകയയ തകല ലനകകയയ പഴയ സസർണതയന ത"3മകയ തകതയന അവർ ആവശ3തപട പകകരല അവർക എത7 സകപനതയൽ നയനല ഒര തകകലടഷൻ തകകടതയടണ.” The above statement reveals that the wife’s family did not purchase any gold from M.M.Jewellery on 09.08.2010, but they brought certain quantity of gold ornaments and after weighing, it was entrusted for remaking and thereafter, an estimate was obtained by Annakutti @ 2025:KER:27826 Mat.Appeal No.312/2015 ..7.. Anna Chandi, the wife’s mother, from M.M.Jewellery for availing bank loan. Ext.A3 certificate issued by the Manager of the Kozhikode Primary Co-operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd., Mukkam Branch, shows that a loan for ₹1,50,000/- was availed by Annakutti @ Anna Chandi for purchase of gold for marriage. The quantity of gold claimed to have been purchased by the wife tallies with Ext.A2 quotation bill of M.M.Jewellery, Thiruvambadi. The details of gold ornaments claimed for, have been detailed in schedule A of the petition. Except a ½ sovereign of gold ring, 13½ sovereigns of gold ornaments have been listed in the schedule. Ext.A2 quotation bill as well as Ext.A6 series photographs reveal that she had worn almost 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The Family Court, on consideration of the entire evidence on board, granted return of 13½ sovereign of gold ornaments from the husband. The findings of facts by the Family Court are on the evidence available and does not require any interference. 10. The next claim is regarding the entrustment of ₹2,00,000/- alleged to have been given to the husband two weeks before the marriage. According to the wife, the said amount was entrusted by the wife’s father to the husband in the presence of two witnesses, 2025:KER:27826 Mat.Appeal No.312/2015 ..8.. viz., one Kochettan @ Paulose, Kanhirathinkal and one Jose, Kanhirathinkal, on 09.08.2010, on the road near the Chemmannur Jewellery, Kozhikode. PW2/wife’s father deposed that ₹2,00,000/- was paid to the husband on the said road for convenience of the husband and his family members. The husband completely denied the contention that ₹2,00,000/- was received by him on the road near the Chemmannur Jewellery, Kozhikode. During cross-examination, the husband admitted that he had purchased the “thali” chain weighing 29 grams and a wedding ring on 08.10.2010. According to the wife, her father gave ₹2,00,000/- to the husband in front of the Chemmannur Jewellery, Mavoor road, Kozhikode, however, they do not remember the date of entrustment. From records, it is clear that the wife’s mother availed a bank loan from the Kozhikode Primary Co-operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd., Mukkam Branch, and they have arrived at the Chemmannur Jewellery, for handing over cash to the husband. Though the husband has denied entrustment of ₹2,00,000/-, circumstantial evidence as well as depositions of PW1 & PW2 substantiate the claim of entrustment of ₹2,00,000/- to the husband. It appears that by utilizing the said amount, he had purchased the “thali” chain and wedding ring from the Chemmannur Jewellery. The Family Court found that ₹2,00,000/- 2025:KER:27826 Mat.Appeal No.312/2015 ..9.. was entrusted to the husband and has directed return the same. We do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding. 11. The decree and judgment of the Family Court do not call for any interference. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE Sd/- SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE bka/-