IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
MAT.APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2013
OP NO.362/2005 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR
APPELLANTS/PETITINOERS 1 AND 2:
1 USHA T.B.,
AGED 52 YEARS,
D/O.LATE BALAKRISHNAN, THAMPURAN PADIKAL HOUSE,
KORATTIKARA, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR
DISTRICT.
2 RAGI, AGED 33,
D/O.P.K.MANI,THAMPURAN PADIKAL HOUSE,
KORATTIKARA, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR
DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
P.K. MANI, AGED 63,
S/O.LATE KOCHUKUTTAN, PANIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
KAIPARAMBU P.O. AND VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK,
DISTRICT-680001.
BY ADV SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MAT.APPEAL No.251 OF 2013 2
JUDGMENT
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This appeal is at the instance of the petitioners in O.P.No.362 of 2005 on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur. The 1st appellant, who is no more, was the wife of the respondent. The 2nd appellant is the daughter born in the wedlock between the 1st appellant and the respondent. They have filed the above original petition for recovery of the value of gold ornaments as well as for maintenance. The Family Court, partly allowed their claim. The Family Court directed the respondent to hand over 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its equivalent value to the tune of Rs.60,000/- to the 1st appellant. Besides, the Family Court ordered payment of Rs.1,20,000/- to the 2 nd appellant. The claim of maintenance made by the 1 st appellant was declined with the other claims made by her. Not satisfied with the decree, they approached this Court with this appeal.
2. Pending appeal, the 1st appellant passed away. Her MAT.APPEAL No.251 OF 2013 3 legal heir is the 2nd appellant. It is submitted at the Bar that the 2nd appellant is also having a brother and he is not made a party to this appeal.
3. The case of the appellants was that the respondent misappropriated 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The husband denied the allegation that he misappropriated the gold ornaments. The Family Court, however, on a guess work ordered that the respondent has to hand over 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments. This order is not under challenge at the instance of the respondent.
4. After going through the pleadings and evidence, we find no reason to allow the claim of the appellants for recovery of 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The appellants also had a case that Rs.15,000/- was paid to the respondent. That claim was rejected by the Family Court. Absolutely there is no evidence to show the payment of Rs.15,000/- or misappropriation of Rs.15,000/- by the respondent. The Family Court declined the claim for maintenance to the 1 st appellant noting that the son of the respondent used to send money for the maintenance of the MAT.APPEAL No.251 OF 2013 4 1st appellant. Anyway, since the 1st appellant is dead pending the appeal, we find no reason to consider any other claim on her behalf, including maintenance.
Appeal fails. Dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE DSV/06.07.2022