Kerala High Court
Gigi V A vs Pramod.M.G on 8 November, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2024:KER:83334
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 17TH KARTHIKA,
1946
MA (EXE.) NO. 18 OF 2024
ORDER DATED 10.09.2024 IN EP 47/2023
IN OP NO.1311/2011, FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/DECREE HOLDER/PETITIONER:
GIGI V A, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O DHINESHAN,
RESIDING AT VARAPITHARA HOUSE, NJARACKAL.P.O,
LIGHT HOUSE COLONY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682505.
BY ADV P.I.SHAMLATH
RESPONDENTS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS/RESPONDENTS:
1 PRAMOD.M.G, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O A.K.GOPI,
RESIDING MAROTHORU HOUSE, NJARACKAL.P.O,
AARATTUVAZHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682505.
2 PRASAD.M.G., AGED 52 YEARS, S/O A.K.GOPI,
RESIDING MAROTHORU HOUSE, NJARACKAL.P.O,
AARATTUVAZHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682505.
3 SHEEJA, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O PRASAD,
RESIDING MAROTHORU HOUSE, NJARACKAL.P.O,
AARATTUVAZHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682505.
2024:KER:83334
MA (EXE.) NO. 18 OF 2024
-2-
4 PRADEEPAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O GOPI,
RESIDING AT MAROTHORU HOUSE, NJARACKAL.P.O,
AARATTUVAZHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682505
5 GOPI (DIED), AGED 86 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MAROTHORU HOUSE, NJARACKAL.P.O,
AARATTUVAZHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682505
6 SARADA, AGED 83 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MAROTHORU HOUSE, NJARACKAL. P.O,
AARATTUVAZHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 682505.
THIS MAT APPEAL (EXECUTION) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:83334
MA (EXE.) NO. 18 OF 2024
-3-
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
This Appeal is against the order of the
learned Family Court, Ernakulam, in
E.P.No.47/2023 in O.P.No.1311/2011.
2. Compendiously, the above mentioned
Original Petition, filed by the wife seeking
her gold ornaments, was allowed, and a decree
was passed, "entitling the petitioner to return
of 15 sovereign of gold ornaments detailed in
petition A schedule or its value of Rs.20,000/-
from the respondents with charge over the
petition C schedule property". (sic)
3. The appellant, however, asserts
that the above decree can only be interpreted to
mean that she is entitled to realize the value
of the gold ornaments as on the date of
2024:KER:83334
MA (EXE.) NO. 18 OF 2024
realization and not on the date of decree. She
relies on the judgment of this Court in
Vipinkumar and Others v. Remyamol [M.A.
(Exe.)No.1/2023], in substantiation.
4. We are afraid that we cannot find
favour with the afore submissions of the
appellant - as argued by her learned counsel,
Smt.P.I.Shamlath - because, even a glance
through the judgment cited renders it luculent
that the decree noticed by the learned Bench of
this Court in the said case was to the effect
that the respondent therein will return certain
weight of gold, or the present market value of
the same. The learned Bench, therefore, declared
that this can only be construed to mean that the
value of gold ornaments will be as at the time
of its realization.
5. However, in the case at hand, the
2024:KER:83334
MA (EXE.) NO. 18 OF 2024
decree in question has allowed the appellant to
recover 15 sovereigns of gold from the
respondents "or its value on this date" (sic).
The date of the decree is 10.11.2016; and
obviously, we cannot expand its purport by
adding words to it.
6. In the afore scenario, when one
examines the order in question, the learned
Family Court has also interpreted the decree in
the manner as we have, to thus find that the
balance amount due to the appellant is only
80,700/-, with interest at the rate of 6% from
July 2022 till the date of payment. The Court
has also granted execution cost of Rs.12,000/-
to the appellant.
7. We cannot find fault with the
learned Family Court in having held as afore
because, it could not have travelled beyond the
2024:KER:83334
MA (EXE.) NO. 18 OF 2024
decree; nor can it interpret it in any other
manner.
8. Indubitably, therefore, the remedy
of the appellant is to challenge the decree
itself appropriately.
In the afore circumstances, with all
liberties, as available in law, being reserved
to the appellant, we dismiss this Mat.Appeal,
without intervening with the impugned order.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA
akv JUDGE
