Kerala High Court
Gireesh.K.P vs P.P.Lijisha on 4 August, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:57807
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 514 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.04.2014 IN OP NO.416 OF 2012 OF
FAMILY COURT, VADAKARA
-----
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
GIREESH.K.P
S/O.NANU, AGED 37 YEARS, HAVILDAR, INDIAN ARMY,
KIZHAKKE PARAMBATH HOUSE, MARUTHONKARA POST, KAVILUPARA
VIA, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
BY ADV SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
P.P.LIJISHA
D/O CHATHU,AGED 34 YEARS,KINARULLA KAITHACHALIL
HOUSE,NAARIPATTA KALLACHI KAKKATIL,VIA,VATAKARA
TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673506.
BY ADV SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
04.08.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.523/2014, 558/2014, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57807
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 523 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.04.2014 IN OP NO.364 OF 2012 OF
FAMILY COURT, VADAKARA
-----
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
GIREESH K.P.
S/O.NANU, AGED 37 YEARS, HAVILDAR, INDIAN ARMY,
KIZHAKKE PARAMBATH HOUSE, MARUTHONKARA POST, KAVILUPARA
VIA, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
P.P.LIJISHA
D/O.CHATHU, AGED 34 YEARS, KINARULLA KAITHACHALIL
HOUSE, NAARIPATTA KALLACI KAKKATIL, VIA, VATAKARA
TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 506.
BY ADV SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
04.08.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.514/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57807
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 558 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.04.2014 IN OP NO.126 OF 2012 OF
FAMILY COURT, VADAKARA
-----
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
GIREESH K P,
S/O.NANU, AGED 37 YEARS, HAVILDAR, INDIAN ARMY,
KIZHAKKE PARAMBATH HOUSE, MARUTHONKARA POST, KAVILUPARA
VIA,VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST.
BY ADV SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
P P LIJISHA
D/O.CHATHU,AGED 34 YEARS, KINARULLA KAITHACHALIL HOUSE,
NAARIPATTA KALLACHI KAKKATIL VIA, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DIST-673506.
BY ADV SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
04.08.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.514/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57807
SATHISH NINAN &
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat. Appeal Nos.514, 523 & 558 of 2014
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 4th day of August, 2025
J U D G M E N T
Sathish Ninan, J.
These appeals are by the husband challenging the
judgments in the proceedings with the wife. Mat. Appeal 523
of 2014 arises from the decree in OP 364/2012 filed by the
wife seeking return of gold ornaments. Mat. Appeal 558/2014
is filed against the dismissal of OP 126/2012 filed by the
husband seeking dissolution of marriage. Mat. Appeal
No.514/2014 arises from the decree in OP 416/2012 filed by
the wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on
27.01.2003. On 21.11.2003 a boy child was born in the
wedlock. The parties fell apart and had been living
separately since the year 2008. According to the wife, at
the time of marriage she was provided with 75 sovereigns of
Mat. Appeal Nos.514, 523 &
558 of 2014
2025:KER:57807
gold ornaments. The entire ornaments were sold by the
husband and his parents for purchase of a jeep. The husband
also misappropriated 4 sovereigns from out of the ornaments
later given to her by her father and also 4 sovereigns of
ornament gifted to the child by her family. She seeks for
return of the gold or its value. She has also claimed that
the husband had been living separately from her without any
just cause. She sought for restitution of conjugal rights.
3. The husband denied the allegations levelled against
him. The wife's claim that at the time of marriage the she
had 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments, was denied. He has also
denied the allegation of misappropriation of the gold
ornaments by him. He alleged that the wife was treating him
with cruelty and was never interested in the matrimonial
relationship. He sought for dissolution of marriage.
4. The Family Court granted a decree in favour of the
wife for return of the gold ornaments claimed, and also for
restitution of conjugal rights. The prayer of the husband
for dissolution of marriage was negatived.
Mat. Appeal Nos.514, 523 &
558 of 2014
2025:KER:57807
5. We have heard Sri.B.Krishna Mani the learned counsel
for the appellant-husband and Sri.T.G.Rajendran, the learned
counsel for the respondent-wife.
6. In the original petition, the wife claims return of
81 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The contention is that the
75 sovereigns of gold ornaments she had at the time of
marriage, and six sovereigns which were later given to her
and the child, were misappropriated by the husband. Though
the husband denied the claim that the wife had 75 sovereigns
of gold ornaments at the time of marriage, he admitted that
the wife had 22 sovereigns of ornaments.
7. With regard to the alleged 75 sovereigns of gold
ornaments, the categoric claim of the wife is that, within
three weeks of the marriage, the entire ornaments were sold
by the husband for purchase of a jeep bearing registration
No.KL-11 E 2892. The factum of purchase of a jeep
immediately after the marriage, is not disputed by the
husband. However, according to him the jeep was purchased
not utilising the gold of the wife but under a hire
purchase.
Mat. Appeal Nos.514, 523 &
558 of 2014
2025:KER:57807
8. With regard to the quantity of the gold ornaments,
all that the wife relies on is Ext.B7 photograph. The
genuineness of Ext.B7 is challenged by the husband. We find
that Ext.B7 is too blurred a photograph. It does not appear
like an ordinary photo at all. The genuineness of the same
cannot be said to be beyond doubt. No other photographs
taken at the time of marriage are produced. In Ext.B7, the
husband is not there. If Ext.B7 was taken at the time of
marriage, then definitely other photographs also would be
available. We find that Ext.B7 cannot be the basis to hold
that the wife possessed so much quantity of gold at the time
of marriage as claimed by her.
9. Be that as it may, the definite allegation of the
wife is that her gold ornaments were misappropriated by the
husband immediately after the marriage, for the purchase of
the jeep bearing registration No.KL-11 E 2892. The husband,
to prove that the purchase of the jeep was under hire
purchase from a financier, produced Ext.A3 copy of the RC
particulars of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-11 E
2892, and Ext.A4 series receipts evidencing payments under
Mat. Appeal Nos.514, 523 &
558 of 2014
2025:KER:57807
the hire purchase. Ext.A3 reveals that the hire purchase was
on 25.02.2003 ie. one month after the marriage. He has also
produced Ext.A5, the statement of accounts relating to the
above hire purchase. Exts.A3 to A5 sufficiently establish
that the purchase of the jeep bearing registration No.KL-11
E 2892 was under a hire purchase arrangement and not by
utilising the gold ornaments as claimed by the wife.
10. The Family Court refused to rely on Ext.A3 stating
that it is only part of the RC book. Ext.A3 is the relevant
page of the RC book of the vehicle which contains the
particulars relating to the hire purchase with the
financier. Ext.A3 has been certified by the Regional
Transport Officer who was examined as PW4. He has deposed
that Ext.A3 was issued from his office. We find that the
Family Court was not justified in having refused to rely on
Ext.A3. The genuineness of Ext.A3 and the entries therein
stands sufficiently proved. The wife has disputed the
genuineness of Ext.A4 series receipts. However, on a perusal
of the said documents we do not find any reason to doubt its
genuineness. The transaction is further corroborated by
Mat. Appeal Nos.514, 523 &
558 of 2014
2025:KER:57807
Ext.A5 statement of accounts. Incidentally we also notice
that, with regard to relevancy and admissibility of
evidence, the Indian Evidence Act does not apply to the
proceedings before the Family Court in the light of Section
14 of the Family Court's Act. We have no hesitation to find
that, the purchase of the jeep bearing registration No.KL-11
E 2892 by the husband was under a hire purchase arrangement.
11. The claim of the wife is definite and categoric
that, her gold was misappropriated by the husband
immediately after the marriage for purchase of the jeep. The
said claim has found against by us. The husband was havildar
in the military service. It is borne out in evidence that
most of the time when the husband was not in his home, the
wife was at her house. In the circumstances it is only
probable that whatever gold ornaments the wife had, was with
her. The husband cannot be held liable for the same. The
finding to the contrary is liable to be set aside.
12. The wife has a claim that, after the
misappropriation of the gold she had at time of marriage by
the husband, her father, noticing that she was not having
Mat. Appeal Nos.514, 523 &
558 of 2014
2025:KER:57807
any gold ornaments provided her with five sovereigns of gold
ornaments. She alleges that from out the same four
sovereigns were misappropriated by the husband. She also
alleges that ornaments of the son weighing two sovereigns
were also misappropriated by the husband. However there is
no evidence to prove the above. Thus we find that the decree
passed against the husband for return of gold ornaments
cannot be sustained.
13. Now coming to the claim of the husband for divorce
and of the wife for restitution of conjugal rights, we do
notice that the original petition filed by the husband
seeking dissolution of marriage was the first in point of
time. It was filed on 18.04.2012. Therein, notice was
ordered to the respondent-wife on 12.06.2012. It is on
receipt of the notice therein that the wife filed OP
364/2012 on 10.10.2012 seeking return of the gold ornaments.
She filed OP 416/2012 for restitution of conjugal rights
only on 14.11.2012. This creates doubt on the bonafides of
the petition. The parties were living separately since the
year 2008. The contention of the husband is that the wife
Mat. Appeal Nos.514, 523 &
558 of 2014
2025:KER:57807
refused to live with him and his parents. She was treating
him with cruelty. Exts.B1 series and B4 series are the
letters sent by the husband to the wife. The contents of the
letters indicate that the husband was very cordial and cared
for his wife. The tone and tenor of the letters admits of no
doubt regarding the same. The contents of the letters
suggest that though the husband was very eager to join his
wife, because of his job as a havildar he was unable to join
her as he planned. The Family Court read in isolation few
sentences from the letters and concluded that the husband
was unable to fulfill his duties as a husband. It is evident
from the letters that except for the time when the husband
is at his house, the wife was always at her parental home.
The wife gave complaints to the superior officer of the
husband in the year 2011 alleging that the husband is not
providing maintenance to her and the child. As was noticed
earlier, the relationship had got strained by 2008 and the
wife was residing at her parental house since then. The
husband has produced Ext.A2 series money order receipts,
demand draft slips, pay in slips etc. for the period from
Mat. Appeal Nos.514, 523 &
558 of 2014
2025:KER:57807
2008-2012 to prove that even after 2008 he had been making
payments to his wife. If the wife was so eager to live with
the husband and was so loving, she would not have sent
complaints to the husband's superior officer. Apart from the
fact that such allegation is not correct, she must have been
very much aware of its consequences. This would belie the
alleged eagerness on the part of the wife to join the
husband.
14. Divorce is sought on the grounds of cruelty and
desertion. As was noticed supra, the parties had been living
separately since 2008. They do not have a case that there
was cohabitation after 2008. The relationship has broken
down irretrievably. On the discussions supra, we find that
the husband is entitled to a decree for divorce. The prayer
of the wife for restitution of conjugal rights is liable to
be rejected.
In the result, these appeals are allowed. The impugned
common judgment of the Family Court is set aside. Original
petition 126/2012 will stand allowed. The marriage between
the parties will stand dissolved by a decree of divorce. OP
Mat. Appeal Nos.514, 523 &
558 of 2014
2025:KER:57807
Nos.416/2012 and 364/2012 will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. To Judge
