Usha T.B vs P.K. Mani
2022 Latest Caselaw 8566 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
                              &
           THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
                  MAT.APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2013
         OP NO.362/2005 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR


APPELLANTS/PETITINOERS 1 AND 2:

    1       USHA T.B.,
            AGED 52 YEARS,
            D/O.LATE BALAKRISHNAN, THAMPURAN PADIKAL HOUSE,
            KORATTIKARA, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR
            DISTRICT.
    2       RAGI, AGED 33,
            D/O.P.K.MANI,THAMPURAN PADIKAL HOUSE,
            KORATTIKARA, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR
            DISTRICT.

            BY ADV SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

            P.K. MANI, AGED 63,
            S/O.LATE KOCHUKUTTAN, PANIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
            KAIPARAMBU P.O. AND VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK,
            DISTRICT-680001.

            BY ADV SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN


        THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 MAT.APPEAL No.251 OF 2013         2




                              JUDGMENT

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This appeal is at the instance of the petitioners in

O.P.No.362 of 2005 on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur. The

1st appellant, who is no more, was the wife of the respondent.

The 2nd appellant is the daughter born in the wedlock between the

1st appellant and the respondent. They have filed the above

original petition for recovery of the value of gold ornaments as

well as for maintenance. The Family Court, partly allowed their

claim. The Family Court directed the respondent to hand over 15

sovereigns of gold ornaments or its equivalent value to the tune

of Rs.60,000/- to the 1st appellant. Besides, the Family Court

ordered payment of Rs.1,20,000/- to the 2 nd appellant. The claim

of maintenance made by the 1 st appellant was declined with the

other claims made by her. Not satisfied with the decree, they

approached this Court with this appeal.

2. Pending appeal, the 1st appellant passed away. Her

legal heir is the 2nd appellant. It is submitted at the Bar that the

2nd appellant is also having a brother and he is not made a party

to this appeal.

3. The case of the appellants was that the respondent

misappropriated 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The husband

denied the allegation that he misappropriated the gold

ornaments. The Family Court, however, on a guess work ordered

that the respondent has to hand over 15 sovereigns of gold

ornaments. This order is not under challenge at the instance of

the respondent.

4. After going through the pleadings and evidence, we find

no reason to allow the claim of the appellants for recovery of 40

sovereigns of gold ornaments. The appellants also had a case

that Rs.15,000/- was paid to the respondent. That claim was

rejected by the Family Court. Absolutely there is no evidence to

show the payment of Rs.15,000/- or misappropriation of

Rs.15,000/- by the respondent. The Family Court declined the

claim for maintenance to the 1 st appellant noting that the son of

the respondent used to send money for the maintenance of the

1st appellant. Anyway, since the 1st appellant is dead pending the

appeal, we find no reason to consider any other claim on her

behalf, including maintenance.

Appeal fails. Dismissed. No costs.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

Sd/-

SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE DSV/06.07.2022