Kerala High Court
H. Shaji vs Farhana Faseen on 15 July, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
Mat.Appeal No.538 of 2018 and RP(FC) No.158 of 2019 2025:KER:51858
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 538 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.02.2016 IN OP NO.118 OF 2012 OF
FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
H. SHAJI, AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. HAMSA, H.S. MANZIL,
INDIRA NAGAR, IIND STREET,
VALIPARAMBU ROAD, KUNNATHURMEDU,
PALAKKAD TALUK & DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.K.ANAND
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
FARHANA FASEEN, AGED 27 YEARS
D/O. SIRAJUDHEEN, 45/593, USHUS AVENUE,
PALLIPURAM P.O.,
PALAKKAD TALUK & DISTRICT-679305.
BY ADV SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
SRI.GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.07.2025, ALONG WITH RPFC.158/2019, THE COURT ON 15.07.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal No.538 of 2018 and RP(FC) No.158 of 2019 2025:KER:51858
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1947
RPFC NO. 158 OF 2019
AGAINST THE PRDER DATED 24.02.2016 IN MC NO.121 OF 2012 OF
FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
H. SHAJI, AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.HAMSA, H.S.MANZIL,
INDIRA NAGAR,
IIND STREET,
VALIPARAMBU ROAD,
KUNNATHURMEDU,
PALAKKAD TALUK, DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL
SRI.T.M.MUHAMED HAFEES
SRI.S.SREENATH
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 FARHANA FASEEN
AGED 27 YEARS,
D/O.SIRAJUDHEEN,
45/593, USHUS AVENUE,
PALLIPURAM P.O.,
PALAKKD TALUK, DISTRICT- 679 305.
2 SHERIN TAHANIYA
AGED 8 1/2 YEARS (MINOR),
Mat.Appeal No.538 of 2018 and RP(FC) No.158 of 2019 2025:KER:51858
3
D/O.FARHANA FASEEN,
45/593, USHUS AVENUE,
PALLIPURAM P.O.,
PALAKKAD TALUK & DISTRICT,
REP. BY MOTHER, FARHANA ASEEN - 679 305.
BY ADV SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
SRI.GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.07.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.538/2018, THE COURT ON
15.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal No.538 of 2018 and RP(FC) No.158 of 2019 2025:KER:51858
4
SATHISH NINAN & P.KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ
--------------------------------------
Mat.Appeal No.538 of 2018 and RP(FC) No.158 of 2019
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar.J The wife filed a petition against her husband for the recovery of gold ornaments, money, and household articles allegedly entrusted to him. She also sought maintenance for herself and her daughter under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These two cases were disposed of by the Family Court along with a petition filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights, through the impugned common order. The Family Court partly allowed the claim for recovery of gold ornaments and also awarded maintenance to the wife and her daughter. The husband has challenged the findings of the Family Court by filing the above appeals. Though the claim for restitution was rejected, there is no Mat.Appeal No.538 of 2018 and RP(FC) No.158 of 2019 2025:KER:51858 5 appeal against that finding.
2. According to the wife, she received 125 sovereigns of gold ornaments from her parents at the time of her marriage, which were entrusted to the husband soon thereafter. On the date of the marriage, her parents also handed over an amount of ₹1,00,000/- to the husband. The husband later misappropriated the gold ornaments and the money. He also neglected to maintain her and their daughter. Accordingly, the wife claimed that the husband should be directed to pay maintenance at the rate of ₹10,000/- per month to her and ₹5,000/- per month to their daughter. She further stated that the husband is engaged in stationery and real estate businesses and earns at least ₹85,000/- per month.
3. The appellant, the husband, denied the above allegations. According to him, the wife possessed only 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments. He also denied the alleged entrustment of ₹1,00,000/-. Objecting to the claim for maintenance, the appellant further contended that he is Mat.Appeal No.538 of 2018 and RP(FC) No.158 of 2019 2025:KER:51858 6 employed as a helper in a shop owned by his father and that, due to injuries sustained in a motor accident, he is unable to attend work regularly.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent, the wife.
5. Though the wife sought recovery of 125 sovereigns of gold ornaments, the trial court allowed recovery of only 50 sovereigns, based on the admission made by the husband that she possessed 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the evidence adduced by the wife is wholly insufficient to establish that the said gold ornaments were entrusted to the husband or that he had misappropriated them.
6. In order to answer the question whether the wife is entitled to recover 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments, we have carefully examined the evidence adduced by both Mat.Appeal No.538 of 2018 and RP(FC) No.158 of 2019 2025:KER:51858 7 sides. In her proof affidavit, the wife narrated specific details of the gold ornaments worn by her at the time of marriage and further reiterated the case advanced by her in the original petition. According to the wife, on 12.03.2006, the husband took possession of all her gold ornaments except for one chain, a pair of earrings, and two bangles, together weighing approximately two sovereigns. The trial court did not accept the case of the wife that she had 125 sovereigns of gold. However, it was found that the husband is liable to return 50 sovereigns of gold. Though she was thoroughly cross-examined by the learned counsel appearing for the husband, her version regarding the entrustment of the gold ornaments remained unshaken. In his written objection, the husband initially contended that the wife possessed only 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments. However, during his testimony at trial, he admitted that she had 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments. In these circumstances, we find no reason to disbelieve the respondent's version that some of the gold ornaments were entrusted to the husband.
Mat.Appeal No.538 of 2018 and RP(FC) No.158 of 2019 2025:KER:51858 8
7. However, we find it difficult to accept her version in its entirety, in view of certain inconsistencies revealed during her cross-examination. She stated at first that her husband used to give her four or five bangles even after the entrustment of her gold ornaments to him. Later, she stated that, for attending her cousin's marriage, she received a long chain, another chain, together with eight bangles. She further admitted that she used to receive gold ornaments from him on certain other occasions as well.
"പ റത പപ ക പ ൾ ആദ മ മ 4-5 പപ വശ വളകൾ ഇട ൻ തന ര ന . ഒര
മക ലത ന ള ല ണ ഇപപക ര തനത. ഭർത വ നമറ ത തയ മട കമ'
കല ണത ന എനമറ ആഭരണങള ൽ ഒര വല യ ല / മനപ+സ, ഒര ഇടതര
ല, 8 വളകൾ തന ര ന . പ ന-ട തന ട ല. ആവശ വര പ ൾ എത ർകക
എനമറ ആഭരണങൾ തന ര ന ."
(Emphasis added)
8. The respondent's version indicates that some of her gold ornaments were returned to her by the appellant. Even according to her own pleadings, some of the gold ornaments remained in her possession, although she states that these consisted of one chain, a pair of earrings, and Mat.Appeal No.538 of 2018 and RP(FC) No.158 of 2019 2025:KER:51858 9 two bangles having two sovereigns. There is no challenge from the wife regarding the trial court's finding that only 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments are liable to be recovered. Upon perusal of Exts. B1 and B2 photographs produced by the wife, we find that they prima facie support the trial court's finding regarding the quantity of gold ornaments possessed by the wife, though she claimed that she had 125 sovereigns. In these circumstances, it is only reasonable to conclude that out of the 50, at least 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments might have been retained by the appellant in the manner stated above, for her regular use. This aspect was not considered by the trial court, and therefore, interference with the impugned order is warranted, at least to that extent.
9. We also noticed another irregularity in the impugned order. The Family Court directed that the wife is entitled to recover 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments or their market value as on the date of the petition. However, it is the settled law that the wife is entitled to recover the Mat.Appeal No.538 of 2018 and RP(FC) No.158 of 2019 2025:KER:51858 10 market value of the gold ornaments as on the date of recovery. Hence, the above direction in the decree also requires modification.
10. The Family Court allowed the claim for maintenance at the rate of ₹4,000/- per month in favour of the wife and ₹3,000/- per month for the daughter. The Family Court, having had the advantage of directly assessing the physical condition of the appellant, concluded that he is an able-bodied person capable of earning a sufficient amount to maintain the wife and daughter. There is no material on record to suggest that the wife is capable of maintaining herself or the child. The amount fixed by the Family Court is very reasonable. In these circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the order granting maintenance.
11. In the result, Mat. Appeal No.538/2018 is partly allowed. The respondent is entitled to recover 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments, or in the alternative, their market value at the time of recovery, from the appellant and Mat.Appeal No.538 of 2018 and RP(FC) No.158 of 2019 2025:KER:51858 11 his assets. The impugned decree is modified accordingly.
R.P.(FC) No.158 of 2019 is dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN, JUDGE Sd/-
P.KRISHNA KUMAR, JUDGE dlk/14/07/