Kerala High Court
Neethu vs Shabir on 8 August, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:59414
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 1093 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.06.2015 IN OP NO.1134 OF 2012 OF
FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR
-----
APPELLANT:
NEETHU,
AGED 22 YEARS,
D/O.CHANDANAPARAMBIL PADIKASALAKKARAN,
MUHAMMED ABDUL RAHIMAN, CHAVAKKAD VILLAGE,DESOM, TALUK.
BY ADV SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 SHABIR,
AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O.NANDIPULATH SEETHI, MATHILAKAM PUTHIYAKAVUDESOM,
PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLURTALUK, PIN 680001.
2 SEETHI,
AGED 67 YEARS ,
S/O.NANDIPULATH ABDUL KHADER,
MATHILAKAM PUTHIYAKAVU DESOM,
PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE,KODUNGALLUR TALUK-680001.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ
SHRI. AJMAL V. A.
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
08.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:59414
SATHISH NINAN &
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat Appeal No.1093 of 2015
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 8th day of August, 2025
J U D G M E N T
Sathish Ninan, J.
The original petition filed by the wife, seeking return of gold ornaments, was dismissed by the Family Court. She is in appeal.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 23.05.2011. According to the wife, at the time of marriage she was provided with 130 sovereigns of gold ornaments. After the marriage 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments were entrusted by the wife to the husband, which the second respondent father-in-law kept in an almirah under his lock and key. On 20.07.2011 the husband returned to his place of employment at Gulf. The parties fell apart. The original petition is filed seeking return of the 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments.
Mat Appeal No.1093 of 2015
2025:KER:59414 -: 2 :-
3. The respondents, in the counter, denied the allegations of entrustment of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments. They also raised a counter claim for return of 23.7 sovereigns of gold ornaments claimed to have been given to the wife at the time of marriage.
4. The Family Court dismissed the original petition and allowed the counter claim.
5. We have heard the learned counsel on either side.
6. With regard to the quantity of gold ornaments that the wife had at the time of marriage, Exts.B9 and B10 are the photographs taken at the time of marriage. The photographs prima facie suggest that the wife had so much quantity of gold as claimed by her. The wife does not dispute that in connection with the marriage she was provided with 23.7 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the side of the husband, in respect of which the counter claim is raised. It is also not in dispute that such ornaments were provided at the time of engagement. Before this court, Mat Appeal No.1093 of 2015 2025:KER:59414 -: 3 :- the appellant has along with I.A No.3839 of 2015, filed under Order XLVII Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure produced bills regarding purchase of ornaments by her father. The bills, together, are only for 78.52 sovereigns. When the above aspects are considered together, her claim that in addition to the 23.7 sovereigns, she had 130 sovereigns does not appear to be correct. It is only probable that the 130 sovereigns of gold ornaments, which the wife claimed to have been available with her at the time of marriage, included the 23.7 sovereigns given from the respondent's side. After deducting the same, the quantity of gold ornaments which belonged to the wife is approximately 106 sovereigns. Even according to the wife, 80 sovereigns of gold ornaments are with her and they are kept in her father's bank locker. Therefore what remains is only 26 sovereigns.
7. Admittedly the wife was a BDS student at the time of marriage and was residing at her parental house in Mat Appeal No.1093 of 2015 2025:KER:59414 -: 4 :- connection with her studies. She used to be at the matrimonial home during holidays. Since she was a student and was going to college, and since she was residing at both the parental home and the matrimonial home, it is only probable that some quantity of gold ornaments(50 sovereigns as claimed by her) were left at the matrimonial home. This is probabilised by yet another circumstance.
8. When the relationship between the parties got strained, there was a mediation at the intervention of the Mahal Committees of the parties. Ext.X6 is the communication issued between the committees. Therein, a reference is made to the gold ornaments belonging to the wife to be returned to her. We are not to be understood to be relying on the said documents to fix the liability upon the husband; but, Ext.X6 definitely suggests that there was at least a claim by the wife with regard to her gold ornaments allegedly with the respondents. This, coupled with the circumstances noted above, to an extent fortifies the wife's claim. The Family Mat Appeal No.1093 of 2015 2025:KER:59414 -: 5 :- Court has discarded Ext.X6 stating that it was only in Ext.X6 that the claim for gold ornaments was raised for the first time. There it is to be noticed that the attempt before the Committees were to reconcile the differences and to save the family. The endeavour was not to separate the couple. This is evident from the contents of Ext.X1 to X5 communications between the Mahal Committees and the parties. As is evident from Ext.X1 dated 25.06.2012 it is only therein that the committee has expressed that the attempt for the settlement has failed. Noticeably Ext.X6 communication is thereafter. Therefore, the said document ought not have been discarded.
9. Thus on a totality of the circumstances it comes out that at the time of marriage the wife had approximately 130 sovereigns of gold ornaments which included the 23.7 sovereigns gifted from the husband's side. The wife admits that she is in possession of 80 sovereigns. The remaining 50 sovereigns are with the respondents. Such quantity includes Mat Appeal No.1093 of 2015 2025:KER:59414 -: 6 :- their 23.7 sovereigns. The wife is entitled to recover her remaining gold ornaments weighing 26 sovereigns from the respondents. The appeal is liable to be allowed to the above extent.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The decree and judgment in the original petition and the counter claim are set aside. The O.P will stand decreed directing the respondents to return 26 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the petitioner within one month from today, on failure of which, the petitioner shall be entitled to realise its market value at the time of recovery. The counter claim is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN JUDGE Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR JUDGE kns/-
//True Copy// P.S. To Judge