Subhi.N vs Sreeraj.E
2021 Latest Caselaw 23345 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
                                    &
              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
   THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
                        MAT.APPEAL NO. 731 OF 2017

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.95/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY
COURT, THALASSERY DATED 11.11.2016.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

           SUBHI N.,
           AGED 36 YEARS, D/O HARIDASAN, NO OCCUPATION,
           NADAVATHEDATH HOUSE,
           MUZHAKUNNU AMSOM, PALA DESOM,
           KOTTAYAD,KAKKAYANGAD P.O.,
           KANNUR DISTRICT-670 673.

           BY ADV SRI.CIBI THOMAS



RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER:

           SREERAJ E.,
           AGED 45 YEARS, S/O SUKUMARAN, DRIVER,
           KALLAT HOUSE,
           VANDIKKARAN PEEDIKA, P.O. MAMBA,
           ANJARAKKANDI AMSOM, MAMBA DESOM,
           KANNUR (DT)-670 673.

           BY ADVS.SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH
                   SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK

     THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION           ON
25.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MAT.APPEAL NO. 731 OF 2017
                                -2-

                             JUDGMENT

This appeal is against the judgment and decree in a

petition filed by the appellant for recovery of gold ornaments.

According to the appellant, she had adorned 143 grams of

gold ornaments at the time of marriage. The marriage was

solemnised on 17.03.2010. They lived as husband and wife

only for 24 days. Thereafter, the respondent-husband went to

Abu Dhabi to rejoin his employment. It is stated by the

appellant that the respondent asked her to give all the gold

ornaments on assurance that, it will be returned when he

comes back to his native place. This claim was not believed by

the Family Court for the reason that the appellant failed to

produce any documentary evidence to substantiate her claim

that she owned such quantity of jewellery. It is to be noted

that the marriage relationship between the parties strained

immediately after 24 days. Admittedly, the appellant left the

matrimonial home of the respondent. She never returned to

her matrimonial home. If she had kept any gold ornaments in

the matrimonial home, she would not have waited for another

five years to reclaim it. No attempt was made by her to MAT.APPEAL NO. 731 OF 2017

reclaim the gold ornaments. Apart from that, there was no

other evidence trustworthy to substantiate her claim that the

gold ornaments were entrusted and misappropriated by the

respondent. The burden on the appellant to prove her case

regarding the entrustment and misappropriation. We find no

reliable evidence was adduced to prove that the respondent

had taken the gold ornaments and misappropriated the same.

In the light of the above discussion, we find no merit in

the appeal and, accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

Sd/-

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE bpr