Kerala High Court
Gireesh K.P vs P.P.Lijisha on 4 August, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:57807
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 514 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.04.2014 IN OP NO.416 OF 2012 OF
FAMILY COURT, VADAKARA
-----
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
GIREESH.K.P
S/O.NANU, AGED 37 YEARS, HAVILDAR, INDIAN ARMY,
KIZHAKKE PARAMBATH HOUSE, MARUTHONKARA POST, KAVILUPARA
VIA, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
BY ADV SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
P.P.LIJISHA
D/O CHATHU,AGED 34 YEARS,KINARULLA KAITHACHALIL
HOUSE,NAARIPATTA KALLACHI KAKKATIL,VIA,VATAKARA
TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673506.
BY ADV SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
04.08.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.523/2014, 558/2014, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57807
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 523 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.04.2014 IN OP NO.364 OF 2012 OF
FAMILY COURT, VADAKARA
-----
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
GIREESH K.P.
S/O.NANU, AGED 37 YEARS, HAVILDAR, INDIAN ARMY,
KIZHAKKE PARAMBATH HOUSE, MARUTHONKARA POST, KAVILUPARA
VIA, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
P.P.LIJISHA
D/O.CHATHU, AGED 34 YEARS, KINARULLA KAITHACHALIL
HOUSE, NAARIPATTA KALLACI KAKKATIL, VIA, VATAKARA
TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 506.
BY ADV SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
04.08.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.514/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57807
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 558 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.04.2014 IN OP NO.126 OF 2012 OF
FAMILY COURT, VADAKARA
-----
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
GIREESH K P,
S/O.NANU, AGED 37 YEARS, HAVILDAR, INDIAN ARMY,
KIZHAKKE PARAMBATH HOUSE, MARUTHONKARA POST, KAVILUPARA
VIA,VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST.
BY ADV SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
P P LIJISHA
D/O.CHATHU,AGED 34 YEARS, KINARULLA KAITHACHALIL HOUSE,
NAARIPATTA KALLACHI KAKKATIL VIA, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DIST-673506.
BY ADV SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
04.08.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.514/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57807
SATHISH NINAN &
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat. Appeal Nos.514, 523 & 558 of 2014
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 4th day of August, 2025
J U D G M E N T
Sathish Ninan, J.
These appeals are by the husband challenging the judgments in the proceedings with the wife. Mat. Appeal 523 of 2014 arises from the decree in OP 364/2012 filed by the wife seeking return of gold ornaments. Mat. Appeal 558/2014 is filed against the dismissal of OP 126/2012 filed by the husband seeking dissolution of marriage. Mat. Appeal No.514/2014 arises from the decree in OP 416/2012 filed by the wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 27.01.2003. On 21.11.2003 a boy child was born in the wedlock. The parties fell apart and had been living separately since the year 2008. According to the wife, at the time of marriage she was provided with 75 sovereigns of Mat. Appeal Nos.514, 523 & 558 of 2014 2025:KER:57807 -: 2 :- gold ornaments. The entire ornaments were sold by the husband and his parents for purchase of a jeep. The husband also misappropriated 4 sovereigns from out of the ornaments later given to her by her father and also 4 sovereigns of ornament gifted to the child by her family. She seeks for return of the gold or its value. She has also claimed that the husband had been living separately from her without any just cause. She sought for restitution of conjugal rights.
3. The husband denied the allegations levelled against him. The wife's claim that at the time of marriage the she had 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments, was denied. He has also denied the allegation of misappropriation of the gold ornaments by him. He alleged that the wife was treating him with cruelty and was never interested in the matrimonial relationship. He sought for dissolution of marriage.
4. The Family Court granted a decree in favour of the wife for return of the gold ornaments claimed, and also for restitution of conjugal rights. The prayer of the husband for dissolution of marriage was negatived. Mat. Appeal Nos.514, 523 & 558 of 2014 2025:KER:57807 -: 3 :-
5. We have heard Sri.B.Krishna Mani the learned counsel for the appellant-husband and Sri.T.G.Rajendran, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife.
6. In the original petition, the wife claims return of 81 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The contention is that the 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments she had at the time of marriage, and six sovereigns which were later given to her and the child, were misappropriated by the husband. Though the husband denied the claim that the wife had 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage, he admitted that the wife had 22 sovereigns of ornaments.
7. With regard to the alleged 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments, the categoric claim of the wife is that, within three weeks of the marriage, the entire ornaments were sold by the husband for purchase of a jeep bearing registration No.KL-11 E 2892. The factum of purchase of a jeep immediately after the marriage, is not disputed by the husband. However, according to him the jeep was purchased not utilising the gold of the wife but under a hire purchase.
Mat. Appeal Nos.514, 523 & 558 of 2014 2025:KER:57807 -: 4 :-
8. With regard to the quantity of the gold ornaments, all that the wife relies on is Ext.B7 photograph. The genuineness of Ext.B7 is challenged by the husband. We find that Ext.B7 is too blurred a photograph. It does not appear like an ordinary photo at all. The genuineness of the same cannot be said to be beyond doubt. No other photographs taken at the time of marriage are produced. In Ext.B7, the husband is not there. If Ext.B7 was taken at the time of marriage, then definitely other photographs also would be available. We find that Ext.B7 cannot be the basis to hold that the wife possessed so much quantity of gold at the time of marriage as claimed by her.
9. Be that as it may, the definite allegation of the wife is that her gold ornaments were misappropriated by the husband immediately after the marriage, for the purchase of the jeep bearing registration No.KL-11 E 2892. The husband, to prove that the purchase of the jeep was under hire purchase from a financier, produced Ext.A3 copy of the RC particulars of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-11 E 2892, and Ext.A4 series receipts evidencing payments under Mat. Appeal Nos.514, 523 & 558 of 2014 2025:KER:57807 -: 5 :- the hire purchase. Ext.A3 reveals that the hire purchase was on 25.02.2003 ie. one month after the marriage. He has also produced Ext.A5, the statement of accounts relating to the above hire purchase. Exts.A3 to A5 sufficiently establish that the purchase of the jeep bearing registration No.KL-11 E 2892 was under a hire purchase arrangement and not by utilising the gold ornaments as claimed by the wife.
10. The Family Court refused to rely on Ext.A3 stating that it is only part of the RC book. Ext.A3 is the relevant page of the RC book of the vehicle which contains the particulars relating to the hire purchase with the financier. Ext.A3 has been certified by the Regional Transport Officer who was examined as PW4. He has deposed that Ext.A3 was issued from his office. We find that the Family Court was not justified in having refused to rely on Ext.A3. The genuineness of Ext.A3 and the entries therein stands sufficiently proved. The wife has disputed the genuineness of Ext.A4 series receipts. However, on a perusal of the said documents we do not find any reason to doubt its genuineness. The transaction is further corroborated by Mat. Appeal Nos.514, 523 & 558 of 2014 2025:KER:57807 -: 6 :- Ext.A5 statement of accounts. Incidentally we also notice that, with regard to relevancy and admissibility of evidence, the Indian Evidence Act does not apply to the proceedings before the Family Court in the light of Section 14 of the Family Court's Act. We have no hesitation to find that, the purchase of the jeep bearing registration No.KL-11 E 2892 by the husband was under a hire purchase arrangement.
11. The claim of the wife is definite and categoric that, her gold was misappropriated by the husband immediately after the marriage for purchase of the jeep. The said claim has found against by us. The husband was havildar in the military service. It is borne out in evidence that most of the time when the husband was not in his home, the wife was at her house. In the circumstances it is only probable that whatever gold ornaments the wife had, was with her. The husband cannot be held liable for the same. The finding to the contrary is liable to be set aside.
12. The wife has a claim that, after the misappropriation of the gold she had at time of marriage by the husband, her father, noticing that she was not having Mat. Appeal Nos.514, 523 & 558 of 2014 2025:KER:57807 -: 7 :- any gold ornaments provided her with five sovereigns of gold ornaments. She alleges that from out the same four sovereigns were misappropriated by the husband. She also alleges that ornaments of the son weighing two sovereigns were also misappropriated by the husband. However there is no evidence to prove the above. Thus we find that the decree passed against the husband for return of gold ornaments cannot be sustained.
13. Now coming to the claim of the husband for divorce and of the wife for restitution of conjugal rights, we do notice that the original petition filed by the husband seeking dissolution of marriage was the first in point of time. It was filed on 18.04.2012. Therein, notice was ordered to the respondent-wife on 12.06.2012. It is on receipt of the notice therein that the wife filed OP 364/2012 on 10.10.2012 seeking return of the gold ornaments. She filed OP 416/2012 for restitution of conjugal rights only on 14.11.2012. This creates doubt on the bonafides of the petition. The parties were living separately since the year 2008. The contention of the husband is that the wife Mat. Appeal Nos.514, 523 & 558 of 2014 2025:KER:57807 -: 8 :- refused to live with him and his parents. She was treating him with cruelty. Exts.B1 series and B4 series are the letters sent by the husband to the wife. The contents of the letters indicate that the husband was very cordial and cared for his wife. The tone and tenor of the letters admits of no doubt regarding the same. The contents of the letters suggest that though the husband was very eager to join his wife, because of his job as a havildar he was unable to join her as he planned. The Family Court read in isolation few sentences from the letters and concluded that the husband was unable to fulfill his duties as a husband. It is evident from the letters that except for the time when the husband is at his house, the wife was always at her parental home. The wife gave complaints to the superior officer of the husband in the year 2011 alleging that the husband is not providing maintenance to her and the child. As was noticed earlier, the relationship had got strained by 2008 and the wife was residing at her parental house since then. The husband has produced Ext.A2 series money order receipts, demand draft slips, pay in slips etc. for the period from Mat. Appeal Nos.514, 523 & 558 of 2014 2025:KER:57807 -: 9 :- 2008-2012 to prove that even after 2008 he had been making payments to his wife. If the wife was so eager to live with the husband and was so loving, she would not have sent complaints to the husband's superior officer. Apart from the fact that such allegation is not correct, she must have been very much aware of its consequences. This would belie the alleged eagerness on the part of the wife to join the husband.
14. Divorce is sought on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. As was noticed supra, the parties had been living separately since 2008. They do not have a case that there was cohabitation after 2008. The relationship has broken down irretrievably. On the discussions supra, we find that the husband is entitled to a decree for divorce. The prayer of the wife for restitution of conjugal rights is liable to be rejected.
In the result, these appeals are allowed. The impugned common judgment of the Family Court is set aside. Original petition 126/2012 will stand allowed. The marriage between the parties will stand dissolved by a decree of divorce. OP Mat. Appeal Nos.514, 523 & 558 of 2014 2025:KER:57807 -: 10 :- Nos.416/2012 and 364/2012 will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN JUDGE Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR JUDGE kns/-
//True Copy// P.S. To Judge