Rajisha vs Pavithran
2021 Latest Caselaw 9080 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                               &

        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

   THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                   Mat.Appeal.No.840 OF 2014

 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 355/2013 DATED 30-07-2014 OF FAMILY
                        COURT, VATAKARA


APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

             RAJISHA
             AGED 24 YEARS
             D/O.KUNHIRAMAN,VADAKKE PUTHUKOTTU HOUSE,MELADI
             AMSOM,KUZHUR DESOM,KIZHUR POST,KOYILANDY TALUK.

             BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

             PAVITHRAN
             AGED 37 YEARS
             S/O.PACHER,KUNIYIL HOUSE,THIKKODI POST,
             THRIKKOTTUR AMSOM,KOYILANDY DESOM,
             KOZHIKODE-673529.

             R1 BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL

     THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Mat.Appeal No.840/2014

                                     -:2:-




                            J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 18th day of March, 2021

A.Muhamed Mustaque,J.

This appeal arises from the judgment of the

Family Court, Vatakara in OP No.355/2013 dated

30/7/2014. Appellant and respondent got married on

16/1/2011. In the wedlock, a child was born to them.

Respondent filed OP No.84/2012 to declare that the

marriage between the appellant and the respondent was

null and void. Family Court granted the relief as

prayed for by the respondent.

2. The appellant filed OP No.355/2013 before the

same Family Court for return of gold ornaments.

According to her, 38 sovereigns of gold ornaments

belonging to her were taken away by the respondent.

Family Court dismissed her claim. It is challenging the

same that the appellant has come up with this appeal. Mat.Appeal No.840/2014

The Family Court noted the inconsistent case of the

appellant and in the absence of any cogent evidence,

Family Court was not prepared to accept the oral

testimonies of appellant and her witnesses. In the

cross-examination, appellant deposed that 36 sovereigns

of gold were obtained by respondent and his mother on the day of marriage itself. Family Court noted that

except the interested testimony of PW1, none of the

witnesses who were examined on her side, supported the

case. PW2, brother of the appellant, deposed before the

court that gold ornaments were taken when the appellant

was in labour room to give birth to the child born in

the wedlock. PW3 deposed that she came to know about

the taking of her ornaments only three months after the

marriage. There was no other evidence regarding the

entrustment or misappropriation by the respondent. The

inconsistent oral testimony of the appellant and other

witnesses on her side was not accepted by the Family

Court.

3. On appreciation of the pleadings and evidence,

we also do not find any ground to interfere with the Mat.Appeal No.840/2014

finding of facts either. The appellant has failed to

prove her case. The appeal deserves only to be

dismissed.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

                                         DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

Rp             True Copy                         JUDGE

               PS to Judge