Shijina vs Biju
2021 Latest Caselaw 7030 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                                &

      THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

  MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                    Mat.Appeal.No.787 OF 2014

    AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 346/2013 OF FAMILY COURT,
                  VADAKARA dated 24/7/2014


APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

              SHIJINA
              AGED 31 YEARS
              D/O.KUNHIKANNA, ANASWARA, MEYANA, MUTTUNGAL
              AMSOM, DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

      1       BIJU
              AGED 40 YEARS
              S/O.GOPALAN, KAYYIVALAPPIL HOUSE,
              PUTHUPANAM AMSOM, DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.

      2       GOPALAN
              AGED 73 YEARS
              S/O.KANARAN, KAYYIVALAPPIL HOUSE,
              PUTHUPANAM AMSOM, DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.

              R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN

     THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Mat.Appeal No.787/2014

                                        -:2:-



                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of March, 2021

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This appeal was filed against the judgment

dismissing a petition for return of gold ornaments. The

appellant and the 1st respondent got married on

29/3/2003. The 1st respondent filed a petition for

divorce on the ground of cruelty and that was allowed.

The appellant filed a petition for return of gold

ornaments alleging that her 55 sovereigns of gold

ornaments were misappropriated by the respondents. The

1st respondent is ex-husband and the 2nd respondent is

the father of the 1st respondent.

2. The Family Court noted the findings of

Magistrate Court under the Domestic Violence Act. The

appellant also raised similar claim in such proceeding

and that was disallowed. It is in that background, the

Family Court negatived the appellant's claim for return

of gold ornaments. It is to be noted that appellant had

not adduced any evidence to substantiate her claim Mat.Appeal No.787/2014

before the Family Court. Appellant also had not chosen

to examine herself before the Family Court. In the

absence of any other cogent evidence, the Family Court

relied upon the earlier proceedings to reject her

claim.

Under such circumstances, we find no merit in this

appeal. In the absence of any evidence before the

Family Court to come to an independent conclusion with

regard to misappropriation, the Family Court was

justified in relying on the proceedings under the

Domestic Violence Act. The appeal is, therefore,

dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

                                               Dr.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

Rp               True Copy                               JUDGE

                 PS to Judge