Kerala High Court
Prince K.Immanuel vs Laiby Augustine on 9 April, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
Mat.A No.200 of 2022 1 2025:KER:32717
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 200 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.12.2021 IN OP(RM) NO.524
OF 2017 OF FAMILY COURT, KATTAPPANA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 PRINCE K.IMMANUEL, AGED 35 YEARS
S/O IMMANUEL, RESIDING AT KELACHIVETTIL HOUSE,
THOMBIKANDOM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA , PIN-689 676.
2 IMMANUEL, AGED 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT KELACHIVETTIL HOUSE, THOMBIKANDOM P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA , PIN-689 676.
3 ALICE IMMANUEL, AGED 45 YEARS
W/O IMMANUEL, RESIDING AT KELACHIVETTIL HOUSE,
THOMBIKANDOM P.O,PATHANAMTHITTA , PIN-689 676.
BY ADVS.
P.SANJAY
A.PARVATHI MENON
BIJU MEENATTOOR
PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH)
P.A.MOHAMMED ASLAM
KIRAN NARAYANAN
PRASOON SUNNY
RAHUL RAJ P.
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
LAIBY AUGUSTINE, AGED 33 YEARS,
D/O AUGUSTINE, RESIDING AT VADAKKEL HOUSE,
KUNKIRIPPETTY KARA, CHAKKUPALLOM P.O,
IDUKKI, PIN-685 509
BY ADVS.
LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
TOM E. JACOB
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
7.4.2025, THE COURT ON 09.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & M.B.SNEHALATHA, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
Mat.Appeal No.200 of 2022
-------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 9th April 2025
JUDGMENT
M.B.Snehalatha.J
Appellants challenge the judgment and decree of the
Family Court, Kattappana by which it directed them to return the
gold ornaments and patrimony to the respondent herein.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred
to by their rank in O.P.No.524/2017 as petitioner and
respondents.
3. Petitioner filed the O.P by alleging that the 40
sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹5 lakhs given to her by her
parents at the time of her marriage and which were entrusted to
the respondents were misappropriated by them and therefore
she is entitled to get back the said 40 sovereigns of gold
ornaments and cash of ₹5 lakhs. It was further contended that
respondents misappropriated her salary to the tune of ₹1 lakh. It
was also contended that respondents subjected her to cruelty and
Mat.A No.200 of 2022 3 2025:KER:32717
therefore she is entitled to an amount of ₹2 lakhs by way of
compensation from the respondents.
4. Respondents filed objection denying entrustment of
gold and cash and denying misappropriation of any gold ornaments
or cash of the petitioner. It was contended by the respondents in
the objection that petitioner had only 88 grams of gold ornaments
at the time of marriage and on the wedding day she was wearing
the said gold ornaments along with certain imitation ornaments. It
was contended that all the gold ornaments are in the custody of
petitioner herself and respondents are not liable to return any
gold or cash.
5. After trial, the Family Court decreed the Original
Petition in part, directing the respondents to return 27.3
sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹5 lakhs to the petitioner.
Petitioner's claim for compensation of ₹2 lakhs and return of ₹1
lakh were disallowed.
6. Does the finding of the learned Family Court that the
petitioner is entitled to 27.3 sovereigns of gold and ₹5 lakhs
warrants any interference by this Court.
7. Admittedly, the marriage between the petitioner and
the 1st respondent was solemnised on 2.11.2013 as per the
Mat.A No.200 of 2022 4 2025:KER:32717
Christian rites and ceremonies. Respondents 2 and 3 are the
parents of the 1st respondent.
8. Petitioner who was examined as PW1 has testified that
at the time of her marriage, she was given 40 sovereigns of gold
ornaments. Her further version is that on the date of betrothal, ie
on 19.10.2013 an amount of ₹5 lakhs was entrusted to the
respondents as patrimony. According to her during the period of
marriage, she was employed at M/s.Dora Micro Finance Ltd.,
Kattappana. After the marriage, in December, 2013 she had to
return to her workplace. Her version is that before returning to
her workplace, her husband/1st respondent insisted her to hand
over the entire gold ornaments to his father, namely the 2 nd
respondent for keeping the same in a bank locker. Accordingly,
she entrusted her entire gold ornaments to the respondents
excluding the thali chain weighing 1.5 sovereigns. Her further
version is that her husband was an alcoholic and due to physical
and mental cruelty meted out by her at the hands of the 1 st
respondent, she was constrained to leave his company. According
to her, respondents are liable to return her entire gold ornaments
and cash of ₹5 lakhs entrusted to them.
9. PW2, who is the father of PW1 has testified in tune with
Mat.A No.200 of 2022 5 2025:KER:32717
the petitioner and he too testified that at the time of marriage,
petitioner was given 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments. He has also
testified that on 19.10.2013, that is, on the date of betrothal, a
sum of ₹5 lakhs was handed over to the respondents. According
to PW2, to raise funds for the marriage, he sold 20 cents of his
property to one of his friends and obtained ₹5 lakhs and also
borrowed another ₹2,25,000/-. His further version is that
subsequently, he discharged the said two liabilities by taking a
loan from the State Bank of India. In support of the said version,
he has produced Exts.A2 and A3 documents.
10. It is nothing unusual that the father of the petitioner
borrowed money for raising funds for his daughter's marriage.
Dowry though legally prohibited, dowry expectation still exist in
our society and there is a social pressure to host elaborate
ceremony at the time of marriage.
11. PW3 testified that he purchased 20 cents of property
from the father of the petitioner and paid ₹5 lakhs by virtue of
Ext.A4 agreement. Subsequently, PW2 gave back sum of ₹5 lakhs
along with an additional sum of ₹1,50,000/- and accordingly, the
property was reconveyed. PW4 has also testified that to meet the
marriage expenses petitioner's father had borrowed money from
Mat.A No.200 of 2022 6 2025:KER:32717
him. The evidence tendered by petitioner and her witnesses
fortifies the version of the petitioner that on the betrothal date,
petitioner's father gave ₹5 lakhs as patrimony.
12. To substantiate petitioner's her case that she had 40
sovereigns of gold ornaments, she has produced Ext.A5 bills in
respect of purchase of 22.3 sovereigns of gold ornaments. She has
also testified that in addition to the gold ornaments purchased as
per Ext.A5 bills, she also received 3½ sovereigns of gold
ornaments gifted by her paternal aunts, namely the sisters of her
father.
13. As against the case of the petitioner that she had 40
sovereigns of gold ornaments the case of the respondent is that
she had only 88 grams of the ornaments and the said gold
ornaments are with the petitioner herself. Ext.A5 series bills
produced by the petitioner would show that as per the said bills
22.3 sovereigns of the gold ornaments were purchased. There is
no reason to disbelieve her case that 3 ½ sovereigns of gold
ornaments were gifted to her by her paternal aunts. We find no
reason to doubt the version of PW1 that at the time of marriage 1 st
respondent was given a gold chain weighing 1.5 sovereigns. The
learned Family Court has appreciated the evidence in its correct
Mat.A No.200 of 2022 7 2025:KER:32717
perspective and we find no reason to interfere in its finding that
the quantity of gold ornaments proved to be entrusted by the
petitioner with the respondent is 27.3 sovereigns of gold. The
learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner
failed to prove the entrustment of gold ornaments and cash of ₹5
lakhs.
14. The evidence tendered by the petitioner through PW2
to PW4 would also fortifies her case that on the betrothal day, her
father entrusted an amount of ₹5 lakhs as patrimony to the
respondents.
15. The specific version of the petitioner is that in
December 2013, before returning to her workplace at Kattappana,
her husband insisted her to entrust her gold ornaments to his
father, namely the 2nd respondent in the O.P and accordingly she
entrusted her entire gold ornaments to the respondents.
16. The standard of proof in such cases would be the
same as in civil cases ie. the court has to decide the cases based
on preponderance of probabilities. The court has to consider,
evaluate and weigh the rival contentions and rival evidence and to
see whether the burden cast on the claimant has been discharged
or not. The party on whom the burden of proof lies has to show
Mat.A No.200 of 2022 8 2025:KER:32717
that his or her version of the event is more plausible or probable
than the case of the opposite party.
17. We find no reason to disbelieve version of petitioner
that after marriage, before returning to her workplace at
Kattappana, she entrusted her entire gold ornaments with the
respondents for safe custody as insisted by them. The said version
of PW1 is quite probable and therefore acceptable. The evidence
adduced by the respondent through RW1 to RW3 and Ext.B3
document do not in any way affect the credibility of the version of
the petitioner that after the marriage, in December 2013, she
entrusted her gold ornaments with the respondents before
returning to her workplace at Kattappana and respondents have
not returned it to her.
18. The evidence on record would show that the gold
ornaments weighing 27.3 sovereigns had been entrusted by the
petitioner to the respondents. Thus, respondents are liable to
return 27.3 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the petitioner. The
respondents are also liable to return ₹5 lakhs to the petitioner as
rightly found by the learned Family Court.
19. The judgment and decree of the Family Court,
Kattappana for return of 27.3 sovereigns of gold and ₹5 lakhs is
Mat.A No.200 of 2022 9 2025:KER:32717
based on proper analysis of evidence and we find no reason to
interfere with the judgment and decree of the learned Family
Court.
Accordingly, appeal fails and is dismissed.
Parties shall suffer their respective cost.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA,
JUDGE
mms/ab
