Kerala High Court
R.Geetha vs T.R.Venkitesh on 22 February, 2021
Mat.Appeal.No.894/2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1942
Mat.Appeal.No.894 OF 2014
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 1696/2007 DATED 11-08-2014 OF
FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/S:
R.GEETHA,
AGED 43 YEARS,
W/O.R.VENKITESH, KUTTINGALPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PANDIKUDI, FORTCOCHI, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN
RESPONDENT/S:
T.R.VENKITESH,
AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O.K.I.RAJAN, 3/31, MARIAMMANKOVIL STREET,
THENMANELLOR, THUNDAMTHUR VIA.,
COIMBATORE SOUTH-641 109.
R1 BY ADV. SMT.O.A.NURIYA
R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA
R1 BY ADV. SMT.SYAMA MOHAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal.No.894/2014 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2021
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This appeal arises from the judgment of the
Family Court, Ernakulam dismissing the petition filed
by the appellant for return of gold ornaments and
cash.
2. Appellant is the wife. Respondent is the
husband. Their marriage was solemnized on 30.03.2000
as per the Hindu religious rites and rituals.
3. According to the appellant, at the time of
marriage a sum of ₹50,000/- was demanded as cash and
20 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The appellant left
the matrimonial home on 04.10.2004. It is alleged by
the appellant that out of 20 sovereigns of gold
ornaments 15 sovereigns of gold have been
misappropriated by the respondent. So also, ₹50,000/-
given at the time of marriage was also
misappropriated by him.
4. Evidence in the matter consists of the oral
evidence of the appellant as PW2 and PW3 as
independent witness. Appellant also produced the
wedding photographs which were marked as Ext.A1 and
two other documents, as Exts.A2 and A3, a letter and
Loan Pass Card issued from Canara Bank, Mattanchery
respectively.
5. The Family Court, on appreciation of the
evidence, came to a conclusion that there is no
evidence as such to show that the gold ornaments were
misappropriated by the respondent. The Family Court
was not pursued to believe the oral testimony of the
appellant and others.
6. The short point involved in this case is
whether there is any evidence to sustain the claim of
the appellant. The Family Court relied on Ext.B1
document. Ext.B1 is copy of the marriage register.
That would only show that at the time of marriage
70gms of gold ornaments alone were the appellant was
in possession of and that would come nearly to 8.75
sovereigns only. Appellant's case itself was that at
the time of marriage she was having 20 sovereigns of
gold ornaments and out of which 15 sovereigns of gold
ornaments were misappropriated by the respondent.
The Family Court also noted that the appellant was
dealing with her own affairs as reflected in Ext.B2
registered sale deed. The Family Court noted that the
property covered by Ext.B2 was acquired in the year
2004 by the appellant and she disposed of the same in
the year 2008. The Family Court observed that there
was no income for the appellant for acquisition and
in such circumstances using her own gold ornaments
for the purchase cannot be ruled out.
On a close analysis of the evidence adduced, we
are of the view that the Family Court rightly
concluded that the appellant failed to prove her case
of misappropriation by the respondent either with
reference to gold ornaments or money alleged to have
been given at the time of marriage. We do not find
any reason to interfere with the finding of the
Family Court. Appeal fails and the same is
dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
JUDGE
DG
