Kerala High Court
Biju vs Susmitha on 10 July, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:50565
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 525 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.12.2015 IN OP(Others) NO.1826
OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL
-----
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SUSMITHA
D/O. SURENDRAN, AGED 31 YEARS,S.S.LAND, MANAMBOOR P.O.,
MANAMBOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
2 ABHIMANUE
S/O. BIJU, AGED 10 YEARS, MINOR,REPRESENTED BY HIS
MOTHER SUSMITHA,S.S.LAND, MANAMBOOR P.O.,
MANAMBOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
BIJU,
S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 43 YEARS,MANI MANDIRAM,
FROM OTTIYIL VEEDU,PUTHUSSERIMUKKU,
KUDAVOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DITRICT.
BY ADV SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN (SR.)
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
10.07.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.270/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:50565
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 270 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.12.2015 IN OP (OTHERS) NO.1826
OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL
-----
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
BIJU,
AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, HINDU, EZHAVA, FOREIGN SERVICE,
RESIDING AT MANI MANDIRAM FROM OTTIYIL VEEDU,
PUTHUSSERIMUKKU, KUDAVOOR, NOW EMPLOYED AT BIJU P.V.,
C/O.MANGANO, VIA. VERSHAL PALERMO 90144, REPRESENTED BY
HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER THRILOCHANAN, AGED 53
YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAHASAN, KANNATHUKONAM VEEDU,
PUTHUSSERIMUKKU, KARAVARAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN (SR.)
SRI.K.M.ABDUL MAJEED
SHRI.PHILIP JOSEPH(PUTHENCHIRA)
SMT.P.J.RAZIA BEEVI
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SUSMITHA
AGED 28 YEARS
D/O.SURENDRAN, HINDU, EZHAVA, HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT
S.S. LAND, MANAMBOOR P.O., MANAMBOOR VILLAGE & DESOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 611.
2025:KER:50565
MAT.APPEAL NO. 270 OF 2016 -2-
2 ABHIMANUE
AGED 7 YEARS
S/O.BIJU, RESIDING AT S.S.LAND, MANAMBOOR P.O.,
MANAMBOOR VILLAGE & DESOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 611, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT
BY ADV SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
10.07.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.525/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:50565
SATHISH NINAN &
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat Appeal Nos.270 & 525 of 2016
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2025
J U D G M E N T
Sathish Ninan, J.
The petitioners and the respondent respectively, in the Original Petition before the Family Court, are in appeal challenging that part of the decree and judgment which is against them. The original petition was filed by the wife and the minor son against the husband claiming return of gold ornaments, money and maintenance. The claim was decreed in part.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 02.01.2005. According to the wife at the time of marriage she was provided with 101 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹ 5 lakhs as pocket money. She entrusted the same with her husband. The second petitioner was born in the wedlock. At the time of "noolukettu" ceremony of the 2nd petitioner, 15 sovereigns of gold Mat Appeal Nos.270 & 525 of 2016 2025:KER:50565 -: 2 :- ornaments were presented by her friends and relatives. The same was also entrusted with the husband. The husband went to Italy on 07.05.2008. The petitioner's father had provided him an amount of ₹ 5 lakhs towards expenses. The parties fell apart and the original petition is filed seeking recovery of the gold ornaments and money. The petitioners also claim maintenance at the rate of ₹ 5,000/- each per month.
3. The respondent contended that the wife had only 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and that the same were always with the wife. The alleged gift of 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the second petitioner was also denied. The claim that an amount of 5 lakhs was provided towards expenses for going to Italy was also denied. It was contended that the wife left the company of the husband on her own volition and that she is living separately without any reason. Accordingly the claim for maintenance was also challenged.
Mat Appeal Nos.270 & 525 of 2016 2025:KER:50565 -: 3 :-
4. The Family Court granted a decree for recovery of an amount of ₹ 10 lakhs, being the money entrusted at the time of marriage and also the amount given for travelling to Italy. Maintenance was ordered at the rate of ₹ 5,000/- each per month to the petitioners from the date of petition. The other claims including the claim for gold ornaments were negatived.
5. We have heard Sri.J.Jayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.T.P.M.Ibrahim Khan, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is confining the appeal to the claim for 101 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that in execution of the decree, the respondent's property has been sold. He did not venture to argue further on his appeal.
7. Coming to the claim for 101 sovereigns of gold ornaments, the Family Court had found that the wife was possessed of that much quantity of ornaments at the time Mat Appeal Nos.270 & 525 of 2016 2025:KER:50565 -: 4 :- of marriage. The court considered her deposition as PW1, along with Ext.A2 series photographs. Having considered the said materials we find that the Family Court was justified in having held so. Now the question is whether the ornaments were entrusted with the respondent and whether a decree is liable to be passed against the respondent for the same.
8. It is the case of the wife that after the marriage all her gold ornaments except two bangles, a pair of studs and 'thali' chain, were entrusted with the respondent. The wife while examined as PW1, in her cross-examination, deposed that, immediately after the marriage the respondent had availed a locker facility. However, while the respondent was examined as RW1, it is not even suggested to him that he had availed a locker facility after the marriage. The husband in his cross- examination has deposed that after the marriage the ornaments of the wife were kept at his house, that there are two shelves in his room. He deposed that the wife Mat Appeal Nos.270 & 525 of 2016 2025:KER:50565 -: 5 :- was entrusted with the key. In his cross-examination it is suggested to him that the gold and money were kept by him in the shelf. Admittedly the husband went to Italy after the marriage. Therefore, the key of the shelf wherein the ornaments were kept could only be with the wife. This probabilises the conclusion of the Family Court that the gold ornaments were always with the custody of the wife. It is in the said background that the Family Court declined the relief sought for recovery of gold ornaments. We find that the conclusions arrived at by the Family Court is a probable one based on the evidence and circumstances and the same warrants no interference.
9. With regard to the decree granted for ₹ 10 lakhs and interest, an amount of ₹ 5 lakhs is claimed to have been entrusted at the time of marriage. To substantiate the same the wife relied on Ext.A3 bank passbook of the wife's father. He is working abroad. He was examined as PW3. Ext.A3 coupled with the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 Mat Appeal Nos.270 & 525 of 2016 2025:KER:50565 -: 6 :- establishes the payment of ₹ 5 lakhs as claimed by the petitioner. With regard to the payment of a further amount of ₹ 5 lakhs, the same is evidenced by Exts.A4 and A5 money transfer receipts by PW3 the father. Out of the amount of ₹ 5 lakhs, ₹ 2.5 lakhs is claimed to have been given before the husband proceeded to Italy and the remaining while he was at Italy. As found by the Family Court the claim is substantiated by the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 3 coupled with Exts.A4 and A5. There is no material to interfere with the said finding.
On the above discussions, we do not find any merit in these appeals.
Resultantly, the appeals fail and are dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN JUDGE Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR JUDGE kns/-
//True Copy// P.S. To Judge