Kerala High Court
Jayan vs Manju on 9 April, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:30619
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 854 OF 2018
AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 27/03/2018 IN OP NO.646 OF
2016 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR
-----
APPELLANT:
JAYAN,
AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O PEETHAMBARAN, ELAMTHURUTHI HOUSE, F3,
MULLAKAL PALACE, VEDAKKEKOTAVATHIL, TRIPUNITHURA P.O.,
NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
R.S.ASWINI SANKAR
T.H.ARAVIND
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
MANJU,
AGED 32 YEARS,
D/O NARAYANAN, PERUMBALAYIL HOUSE, PERUMBILLISSERY
P.O., CHERPU, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SMT.AYSHA ABRAHAM
SRI.S.SARATH PRASAD
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
09.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:30619
SATHISH NINAN &
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat. Appeal No.854 of 2018
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 9th day of April, 2025
J U D G M E N T
Sathish Ninan, J.
The original petition filed by the husband against
the wife seeking return of gold ornaments and money, was
dismissed by the Family Court. The husband is in appeal.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized
on 25.01.2009. The marital life fell in doldrums. The
petitioner-husband alleges that he had entrusted the
respondent-wife a Thali chain having 5 ¼ sovereigns and
a gold navaratna ring worth ₹ 15,000/-. His mother had,
at the time of engagement, gave one gold bangle having
one sovereign of gold. His sister had given a gold
bangle having one and a half sovereign, the mother had
given gold Pathakkam having four grams and gold jimikki
and stud having one sovereign. His mother's sister had
given gold bangle having six grams. His chitta had given
2025:KER:30619
ring having 4 grams. The ornaments were given in lieu of
love and affection towards the respondent-wife. The
petitioner further claims that, immediately after the
marriage he had deposited an amount of ₹ 25,000/- in the
name of the respondent with the State Bank of India,
Cherpu branch, followed by a further deposit of
₹ 10,000/- for availing a locker facility with the
Federal Bank, Cherpu branch in the name of the
respondent. The deposits were also in consideration of
love and affection and was to be returned as and when
required. Matrimonial relationship having broken down,
he claims return of the gold and money.
3. The respondent filed objections denying the
allegations that the petitioner's mother had given
'jimikki' and 'pathakkam' as claimed. While she admitted
that the mother had given a bangle, she pleaded
ignorance of its weight. She further admitted that she
was given gold ornaments by the mother's sister etc. as
claimed by the petitioner. With regard to the thali
2025:KER:30619
chain, she contended that she wore the thali on a thin
chain. She further contended that gold ornaments were
got returned by the petitioner and his mother.
4. With regard to the deposit with the State Bank
of India Cherpu branch it was contended that the deposit
was of ₹ 35,000/- and not ₹ 25,000/- and that it was by
her father. Further, with regard to the deposit of
₹ 10,000/- for availing a locker facility, it was
contended that it is a joint locker in the names of the
petitioner and the respondent, and that the said locker
facility is still in existence and that no amounts are
payable with regard to the same.
5. The Family Court held that the claim of the
petitioner-husband is in respect of gifts given to the
wife during the time of marriage which is her
'sthridhana' property. It is her absolute property, and
the petitioner is not entitled to recover the same. With
regard to the deposit of ₹ 35,000/-, the court accepted
the respondent's case that the deposit was by her
2025:KER:30619
father. With regard to ₹ 10,000/- deposited towards bank
locker, it was found that since the locker facility is
still in existence, petitioner is not entitled to claim
amounts under the said head. Accordingly the original
petition is dismissed.
6. We have heard Sri.K.Ramakumar, the learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant-husband and
Sri.Yeshwanth Shenoy, the learned counsel for the
respondent-wife.
7. The points that arise for determination are:-
(i) Does the finding of the Family Court that the petitioner-
husband is not entitled to recover the gold ornaments given to the
respondent-wife in connection with the marriage, sustainable?
(ii) Was the Family Court right in having declined the claim for
the Bank deposits?
8. With regard to the petitioner's claim for gold
ornaments, the relevant pleading is at paragraph 4 of
the original petition. The same reads thus :-
"4. The petitioner had also entrusted the respondent the thali chain
having 5 ¼ sovereigns at the time of marriage. The petitioner had given
2025:KER:30619
the respondent a gold Navaratna ring worth Rs.15,000/-. The petitioner's
mother had given one gold bangle having 1 sovereign at the time of
engagement, his sister had given a gold bangle having 1 1/2 sovereigns,
mother had given gold pathakkam having 4gms and gold jimikkki and
stud having 1 sovereign, the petitioner's mother's sister (Leelamani) had
given gold bangle having 6 gms and the petitioner's chitta (Rugmini) had
given ring having 4 gms to the respondent. All these ornaments were
given on the basis of love and affection towards the respondent as the
dutiful and loyal wife of the petitioner and these were entrusted with a
belief that the matrimonial relationship with the petitioner will continue
without any discord or destruction. Since the matrimonial relationship
with the respondent is irretrievably broken-down, the petitioner is entitled
for realizing these gold ornaments or its value from the respondent. The
gold ornaments are described in the schedule given below and is
mentioned as petition scheduled property hereinafter. The entire
ornaments except the thali chain were received as gift to the marriage of
the petitioner and were entrusted by the petitioner with the respondent on
the basis of love and affection."
Evidently, it is the petitioner's case that the
ornaments were gifted to the respondent in consideration
of the love and affection and in connection with the
marriage. The ornaments having been gifted to the
respondent-wife it becomes her absolute property. The
donors do not retain title over the same. Though at
paragraph 5 of the original petition it is pleaded that
2025:KER:30619
"The above said deposits and gold ornaments were entrusted with the respondent as a
trustee on the basis of love and affection with a belief and understanding that it would be
returned as and when it is required back.", the plea of gift for love
and affection, and a plea of entrustment as a trustee,
are incongruous and cannot go together. When even
according to the petitioner, the ornaments were given
out of love and affection and as a gift, there is no
force in the contention that it was an entrustment.
9. The learned Senior Counsel would rely on the
decision of this Court in Mary v. Cherchi and Ors. (1980 KLT 353) to
contend that, the finding of the Family Court is that
the ornaments were given as "Sthreedhanam" which
partakes the character of "dowry", which is prohibited
under law. The court ought not to have given legal
sanction to the same. The finding is opposed to law, it
is argued. We are unable to find force in the contention
of the learned Senior Counsel. In Mary v. Cherchi and Ors.
(supra), the claim in the original petition was by the
wife against her husband for Sthreedhanam amount. The
2025:KER:30619
court referred to the provisions of the Cochin Christian
Succession Act and the Dowry Prohibition Act and held
thus:-
"..... So it is only a Streedhanam in the ordinary sense, i.e. a gift of money
or property given to a female before, at or after marriage. It is
unnecessary to dialate more into this aspect of the matter because
whether the amount is treated as Streedhanam within the meaning of the
Cochin Christian Succession Act or 'dowry' within the meaning of the
Dowry Prohibition Act both these enactments clearly state that the
amount received by her husband, his parent or guardian shall be kept by
him in trust for her. In other words Streedhanam is always the property of
the woman whoever is given custody of the same. Woman can always
claim it back and enforce the return of it. In this view the decision of
Khalid, J. in Thoma v. Sarakutty (1975 KLT 386) cannot be said to be
correct. S.6 of that Act is not noticed there. A suit for recovering this
amount will not be hit by the Dowry Prohibition Act."
In fact the said decision acknowledges the title of the
wife over the gifts given to her in connection with the
marriage, and that the husband is only a trustee for
such property.
10. Even going by the petitioner's case, the gold
ornaments in question had been gifted to the wife.
2025:KER:30619
Thus she becomes the absolute owner, and the claim for
return of the ornaments on discord in the marital tie
cannot be maintained.
11. That apart, it is to be noticed that, even
going by the averments in the original petition, out of
the gold ornaments claimed, except the Thali chain and
the Navaratna ring all the other ornaments are stated to
have been gifted not by the petitioner but by others,
viz. petitioner's mother, petitioners mother's sister,
and petitioner's chitta. They have not come forward
seeking return of the same. The petitioner cannot claim
back the same he not being the donor. Therefore, the
claim cannot be sustained on that ground also.
12. With regard to the claim for the thali chain, the
Family Court held that the marital tie has not been
dissolved and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled
for return of the same. Challenging the dismissal of the
2025:KER:30619
original petition filed by the petitioner seeking
dissolution of marriage, he had approached this Court in
Mat. Appeal No.1061/2015. As per judgment dated
27.05.2020, the appeal was allowed, dissolving the
marriage. Therefore, the reason given by the Family
Court for rejection of the claim does not survive. With
regard to the thali chain, the case of the petitioner is
that at the time of marriage the respondent was adorned
with a thali chain having 5 ¼ sovereigns. On a reading
of the objections it is seen that there is no specific
denial of such contention. All that is stated is that
she used to wear the thali on a small chain. The
relevant sentence in the Original Petition, which is in
English, and in the Objections, which is in Malayalam,
are extracted hereunder:-
"The petitioner had also entrusted the respondent the thali chain
having 5 ¼ sovereigns at the time of marriage."
"ത ല മ ല എതകക യട പകല ല. ആയത ഹർജക രട പകല ണ. ട റയ മ ലയൽ
ത ല കക ർത ണ എതകക ഇടരനത. ....."
2025:KER:30619
While the respondent was examined as RW1 in the cross-
examination she deposed thus :-
"PW1 എന ക ത ല chain അണയച. 5 പവൻ ഉണ എന പറഞ."
Therefore, it is evident that the respondent does not
deny that she was adorned with a thali chain of 5 ¼
sovereigns as claimed by the petitioner. Her claim that
she was wearing the thali on a small chain as claimed by
her has not been proved. A thali chain cannot be equated
or considered at par with other gold ornaments gifted at
the time of marriage. It symbolises the marital tie and
the life long bond between them. Once the marital tie is
dissolved, the wife is bound to return the same. There
is no evidence that the thali is returned. Hence the
petitioner is entitled for a decree for the same.
13. With regard to the claim for ₹ 25,000/-
allegedly deposited with the State Bank of India, the
respondent contended that the amount deposited was not
₹ 25,000/- but was ₹ 35,000/- and that the deposit was
2025:KER:30619
by the father. Ext.B3 is the Bank pass book evidencing
the transaction. On the contrary, there is no evidence
from the side of the petitioner to prove such deposit.
As noticed, the petitioner is not even aware of the
quantum. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner was
rightly negatived by the Family Court.
14. With regard to the claim of ₹ 10,000/-
deposited for operating a bank locker, admittedly the
locker is still operational. The claim for the same was
rightly declined by the Family Court.
15. Thus the decree and judgment of the Family
Court is liable to be interfered with to the extent of
granting the petitioner a decree for return of the thali
chain.
Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part. The
original petition will stand allowed directing the
respondent to return the thali chain worth 5 ¼
sovereigns to the petitioner within one month from
today, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled
2025:KER:30619
to realise its present market value from the respondent
and her assets. The dismissal of the other reliefs
sought in the original petition will stand affirmed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. To Judge
