2025:KER:31877 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 656 OF 2021 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.790 OF 2016 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1 IN O.P: T.C.MANI AGED 79 YEARS S/O. CHAMI, THEKKUMPURAM RAKKANDIYIL, VEMBALLUR, THENKURISSI AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678671. BY ADVS. P.B.KRISHNAN P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SABU GEORGE MANU VYASAN PETER RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN OP: SAJITHA .K.M, AGED 38 YEARS D/O.K.K.MANI, W/O. LATE SUNIL, RESIDING AT KAKKODU VEEDU, KOZHUKKULLI, ELEVAMPADAM P.O., KIZHAKKANCHERY AMSOM AND DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678684. BY ADVS. T.R.HARIKUMAR ADITHYA RAJEEV THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 8.4.2024, THE COURT ON 09.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mat.A.No.656 of 2021 2 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & M.B.SNEHALATHA, JJ ------------------------------------------- Mat.A.No.656 of 2021 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2025 JUDGMENT M.B.Snehalatha, J Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree of the Family Court, Palakkad, by which it granted a decree in favour of the respondent herein/petitioner in the Original Petition, for return of her gold ornaments and cash. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to by their rank in the Original Petition as petitioner and respondent. 3. Original Petition was filed by the petitioner/wife against her father-in-law and mother-in-law contending as follows: 4. The marriage of the petitioner with respondents’ son Sunil was solemnized on 16.09.2007 in accordance with Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. At the time of marriage, petitioner was given 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of ₹1 lakh Mat.A.No.656 of 2021 3 from her house. Her husband Sunil was suffering from tuberculosis even prior to the marriage and his parents, namely, respondents 1 and 2 suppressed the said fact from her and her family. Respondents misappropriated 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments and the cash of ₹1 lakh of the petitioner. They pledged and sold the gold ornaments under the pretext of raising money for the treatment expenses of Sunil. On 1.2.2016, petitioner’s husband Sunil committed suicide. Subsequent to the death of her husband Sunil, respondents demanded her to leave the matrimonial home. When the petitioner demanded back her gold ornaments and cash of ₹1 lakh misappropriated by them, 1st respondent agreed to transfer 25 cents of property in favour of the petitioner and on 12.02.2016, he executed a document agreeing to transfer 25 cents of his land to the petitioner. But due to the undue interference of his son-in-law, 1st respondent did not transfer the land as agreed. Respondents are liable to return the 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of Rs.1 lakh misappropriated by them. 5. 2nd respondent in the Original Petition/mother- in-law died during pendency of the petition. 6. 1st respondent/father-in-law filed counter, denying the petitioner's case that she was given 35 sovereigns of Mat.A.No.656 of 2021 4 gold ornaments and cash of ₹1 lakh from her house. He also denied the allegation regarding misappropriation of gold ornaments and cash belonging to the petitioner. He contended that petitioner had only 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments and the said ornaments are with her. Petitioner is also in possession of 7 sovereigns of gold ornaments given to her at the time of marriage by the respondents and their son Sunil. There was no agreement to give 25 cents of land to the petitioner towards the value of the gold ornaments and money as alleged by the petitioner and no such agreement was executed by the 1st respondent as alleged. During the post-funeral rituals of the respondents’ son Sunil, petitioner and her men had obtained the signature of the respondent in certain papers and documents by coercion. Respondent is not aware of the nature of the said documents as he was grief-stricken on account of the death of his son. The petitioner's husband, Sunil, was undergoing treatment for a period of three years prior to his death and the entire treatment expenses were met by the son-in-law of the respondent. Respondent is not liable to return any gold or cash to the petitioner as alleged. 7. After trial, the Family Court decreed the Original Petition in part, granting a decree in favour of the petitioner Mat.A.No.656 of 2021 5 directing the 1st respondent to return 19.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of ₹1 lakh to the petitioner. 8. 1st respondent in the Original Petition assails the said judgment and decree, contending that the Family Court has not analyzed the evidence in its correct perspective; that he has not taken any gold or cash of the petitioner; that the Family Court went wrong in granting a decree for return of gold ornaments and cash. 9. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the impugned judgment and decree need any interference by this Court. 10. Admittedly, the marriage of the petitioner with Sunil, who is the son of the respondent was solemnized on 16.09.2007 as per Hindu customary rites and ceremonies. Petitioner, who was examined as PW1 has testified that at the time of her marriage, she was given 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments and an amount of ₹1 lakh by her parents. Her further version is that respondents misappropriated her 30 sovereigns of her gold ornaments and cash of ₹1 lakh under the pretext of providing treatment to her husband Sunil who was suffering from tuberculosis and who was HIV Positive. 11. The 1st respondent in his counter statement has Mat.A.No.656 of 2021 6 admitted that at the time of marriage, petitioner had only 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments. 1st respondent has no case that the parents of the petitioner had no financial capacity to give her 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of ₹1 lakh to her at the time of her marriage as spoken to by PW1. To substantiate petitioner's case that she had 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments, she has produced Exts.A7 and A7B photographs. It is to be borne in mind that respondent has admitted in his counter statement that petitioner had worn 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage. The said admission made by him also probabalise the version of the petitioner that at the time of marriage, she was given 35 sovereigns of gold by her parents. Respondent has not entered into the witness box to speak his case on oath and offer himself for cross examination. We find no reason to suspect the genuineness of the version of the petitioner that at the time of her marriage, she was given 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of ₹1 lakh by her parents. 12. The case of the petitioner is that out of her 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments, 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments were taken by her parents-in-law on various occasions for pledging and sale under the pretext to raise money for the treatment of her husband. Mat.A.No.656 of 2021 7 13. It is an admitted case that petitioner's husband, Sunil died on 01.02.2016. It has also come out in evidence that he was tested HIV positive. It is also in evidence that petitioner is also tested HIV positive. 14. The specific case of the petitioner is that after the death of her husband Sunil, her father-in-law and mother-in- law demanded her to leave the matrimonial home. According to her, when she demanded them to return her gold ornaments and cash misappropriated by them, 1st respondent in the OP/appellant herein executed Ext.A3 document agreeing to transfer 25 cents of land in lieu of her 30 sovereigns of gold and cash of ₹1 lakh taken by him. Her further version is that though 1st respondent agreed to transfer 25 cents of land, he resiled from the said promise due to the interference of his son-in-law. 15. 1st respondent has admitted his signature in Ext.A3 document. His case is that petitioner and her men obtained his signature in certain papers under coercion and he is not aware of the contents of it. But it is to be borne in mind that 1st respondent has not entered into the witness box to deny Ext.A3 document, which admittedly bears his signature. By virtue of the said document dated 12.2.2016, respondent had agreed to transfer 25 cents of land to the petitioner. PW3 Mat.A.No.656 of 2021 8 Swaminathan who is a neighbour of the parties has testified that he is a witness to the execution of Ext.A3 Karar by the 1st respondent and PW3 has affixed his signature as a witness of Ext.A3. PW3 has also testified that after the death of petitioner’s husband Sunil, when the in-laws of the petitioner demanded her to leave the matrimonial home, the local people intervened and mediated in the matter and when the petitioner demanded the respondent to return her gold ornaments, the respondent agreed to transfer his 25 cents of property in favour of the petitioner and it was under the said circumstances, Ext.A3 document was executed by the respondent. 16. We find no reason to disbelieve the case of the petitioner that it was in lieu of her gold ornaments and cash of ₹1 lakh taken by the respondent, that he agreed to transfer 25 cents of land in favour of the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that respondent resiled from Ext.A3 agreement and he did not transfer the land as agreed to in Ext.A3. 17. Though the respondent would contend that the entire gold ornaments of the petitioner is with herself, respondent failed to substantiate the said contention by adducing any evidence. As stated earlier, 1st respondent has not even entered into the witness box to speak his case on oath. Mat.A.No.656 of 2021 9 Therefore, his case that the petitioner is in possession of her entire gold ornaments and he has not taken any gold ornaments is untenable as rightly held by the learned Family Court. 18. In Iswar Bhai C.Patel @ Bachu Bhai Patel v. Harihar Behera and another (1999 KHC 1076), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when a party fails to enter into the witness box to speak his case on oath, an adverse inference can be drawn that the case canvassed by him is incorrect. 19. In the petition as well as while examined as PW1, petitioner has specifically described her 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments taken by the respondent. It is in evidence that out of the said items of gold ornaments described in the petition, items 1 to 3 ornaments weighing 10.5 sovereigns which had been pledged in the bank by her late husband Sunil was redeemed by her after the death of Sunil by remitting the loan amounts. The version of PW2, namely the Secretary in charge of Koduvayoor Service Co-operative Bank coupled with Exts.A8 and A9 fortifies the case of the petitioner that 10.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments pledged in the said bank by her husband Sunil was redeemed by her after the death of her husband. It was after deducting the said 10.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments, from out of the 30 sovereigns claimed by the petitioner, the Family Court Mat.A.No.656 of 2021 10 granted a decree in her favour directing R1 to return 19.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments. 20. Petitioner is entitled to get back 19.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of ₹1 lakh as rightly found by the learned Family Court and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said findings of the learned Family Court. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Parties shall suffer their respective costs. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE Mms/ab