Kerala High Court
Shanavas Muhammed vs Noufeena M.K on 7 August, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:58628
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 850 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2015 IN OP NO.532 OF 2012 OF
FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY
-----
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
SHANAVAS MUHAMMED,
AGED 33 YEARS,
S/O. CHONOKADAVATH MUHAMMED, SHANU MAHAL,
MUZHAPPILANGAD, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
C.K.MUHAMMED, S/O. IBRAHIM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.D.ARUN BOSE
SRI.K.VISWAN
SMT.P.S.POOJA
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
NOUFEENA M.K,
AGED 25 YEARS,
D/O. K.K.NASAR, DARUL ISHAN, KTP MUKKU, CHIRAKKARA,
THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SMT.K.BINUMOLE THOMAS
SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:58628
SATHISH NINAN &
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat. Appeal No.850 of 2015
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2025
J U D G M E N T
Sathish Ninan, J.
The original petition filed by the divorced wife
against the husband for return of gold and money, was
decreed by the Family Court. The husband is in appeal.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on
18.12.2008. According to the wife, at the time of marriage
she was provided with 100 sovereigns of gold ornaments and
an amount of ₹ 5 lakhs. The entire gold and money were
misappropriated by the husband. The wife was being treated
with cruelty, both physical and mental, by the husband. As
demanded by the husband, amounts were given to him by her
father on various occasions on her behalf, totalling to ₹ 18
lakhs. The said amount was also misappropriated by the
husband. Unable to withstand the cruelty, the wife expressed
that she would initiate criminal proceedings against him.
2025:KER:58628
Thereupon, the husband agreed to return the entire gold and
money. Such undertaking was written down on Ext.A1 dated
08.09.2012. The original petition is filed seeking recovery
of gold and money.
3. The respondent-husband denied the averments in the
original petition. With regard to Ext.A1, it was contended
that he and his parents were invited by the wife for her
brother's marriage held on 02.09.2012. After the marriage he
and his parents returned home. Two days later on 04.09.2012,
the wife telephoned him that she is sick and needed to be
taken to the hospital. When he rushed to her home, her
brother, father and others in the house forcefully confined
him at the house, and on 04.09.2012 and 05.09.2012 they
obtained his blank signed papers, stamped and unstamped. He
was illegally confined at her house for a period of 23 days.
Thereafter he managed to escape on the interference of one
Prabakaran Master, Vazhayil Razack and Kalthendi Razak.
Ext.A1 is fabricated on one such blank stamp paper. He
2025:KER:58628
sought for dismissal of the Original Petition.
4. The Family Court relied on Ext.A1 and decreed the
claim.
5. We have heard Sri.P.N.Sukumaran, the learned counsel
for the appellant-husband, and Sri.T.M.Raman Kartha, the
learned Counsel, on behalf of the respondent-wife.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that
the Family Court went wrong in relying on Ext.A1, to grant a
decree. The court ought to have found that Ext.A1 is a
fabricated document. Ext.A1 was created upon a signed blank
paper obtained from the husband while under the wrongful
confinement at the wife's house. Using other signed papers,
one of her relatives had fabricated an agreement for sale
and had filed a suit for specific performance upon the same.
The court after a full-fledged trial has dismissed the suit.
Even going by the evidence of the wife and her witnesses,
they are not aware as to who was the scribe of Ext.A1. The
decree is liable to be set aside, it is argued.
2025:KER:58628
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
wife would on the other hand submit that the defence set up
that, the story of illegal confinement and obtaining of
signed papers under coercion and fabrication of Ext.A1
agreement, is highly improbable. Though the husband claims
that he escaped from the house with the help of three
persons named by him, none of them are examined. The decree
and judgment of the Family Court warrants no interference,
it is argued.
8. We have considered the rival submissions, and
scanned through the pleadings and the evidence.
9. It is the claim of the wife that, at the time of
marriage she was provided with 100 sovereigns of gold
ornaments and ₹ 5 lakhs. Ext.A2 series are the marriage
photographs. Prima facie they reveal that the wife was
wearing the quantity of gold ornaments as claimed by her.
Pertinently, the above claim of the wife is not denied in
the counter statement filed by the husband to the original
2025:KER:58628
petition. In the counter statement, he has only denied the
alleged misappropriation and also challenged Ext.A1.
10. Apparently, the centre of the dispute between the
parties is on the genuineness of Ext.A1 document. Ext.A1 is
dated 08.09.2012. Ext.A1 is under the signature and thumb
impression of the husband. Ext.A1 acknowledges that he had
misappropriated 100 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹ 18
lakhs. According to the husband, on 02.09.2012 he and his
parents were invited for the marriage of the wife's brother.
They attended the function and left. Two days later, ie. on
04.09.2012 the wife telephoned him that she is sick and
needs to be taken to the hospital. Thereupon he rushed to
her house. There he was restrained and was wrongfully
confined for a period of 23 days. On 04.09.2012 and
05.09.2012, signed blank papers, both stamped and unstamped,
were obtained from him. Finally, he managed to escape with
the aid of one Prabakaran Master, Vazhayil Razack and
Kalthendi Razak. Thereafter he filed a complaint before the
2025:KER:58628
police. According to him, Ext.A1 is fabricated upon such
paper and cannot be relied upon.
11. The fact that the husband resided at the wife's
house for a period of almost one month during the relevant
period, is not disputed by the wife. It is at that point of
time that Ext.A1 was executed, is also not disputed. But
according to the wife, the husband had voluntarily prepared
Ext.A1, when he was told that criminal proceedings would be
initiated against him for the misappropriation of gold and
money and for the physical assault. Ext.A1 was voluntarily
executed by him, it is claimed.
12. While the husband claims that he was under illegal
confinement at the wife's house for a period of 23 days
during the relevant period, he has deposed that his family
members were aware of such confinement. In spite of the same
they did not come to see him. He has also deposed that they
did not file any complaint before the police. The deposition
reads thus: -
2025:KER:58628
"23 ദദിവസവവവും എനന്റെ വവീടട്ടുകകാർകക്ക് ഞകാൻ ഹരജദികകാരദിയവനട
വവീടട്ടുതടങ്കലദിലകായദിരവനവ എനക്ക് അറദിയകാമകായദിരവനവ. Witness adds.
എനന്റെ വവീടദികകാനര ഹരജദികകാരവനട വവീടട്ടുകകാർ കകാണകാൻ വദിടദില. എനന്റെ
വവീടദികകാർ പരകാതദി Police ൽ നകകാടവതദിടദില. "
It is very difficult to accept the contention that though
the husband was under illegal confinement for 23 days and
his family was aware of the same still, no steps were taken
by them to get him released from the confinement; they did
not even approach the police for help.
13. So also it is the definite case of the husband that
he escaped from the illegal confinement with the assistance
three persons viz. Prabakaran Master, Vazhayil Razack and
Kalthendi Razak. How he managed to escape from the
confinement etc. are not stated. None of the said three
persons are examined. Sufficient to note that the allegation
of illegal confinement, threat and coercion, remain
unproved.
2025:KER:58628
14. The husband claims that, as soon as he escaped from
the illegal confinement he had filed a complaint before the
Circle Inspector of Police on 30.09.2012. Ext.B4 is claimed
to be its copy. The wife has challenged its genuineness.
There is no material to indicate that Ext.B4 was submitted
before the police. It does not contain any acknowledgment.
There is no case that the complaint was entered in the
register. Ext.B3 is a private complaint filed by the husband
before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court,
Thalasseri, with regard to the alleged incident. The
complaint was submitted only on 11.10.2012.
15. Ext.A4 is the judgment in OP 531/2012 of the Family
Court. The original petition was one filed by the wife
against the husband seeking dissolution of marriage. The
original petition was allowed under Ext.A4. Ext.A4 reveals
that therein the wife had specifically alleged about the
2025:KER:58628
repeated demands of the husband for money, and also
regarding the execution of Ext.A1. In spite of the same, the
husband did not choose to deny such averments but remained
exparte. If the averments in the Original Petition were
false, the husband would have definitely challenged the
same.
16. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that,
an agreement for sale was fabricated upon a blank signed
stamp paper obtained from him under coercion and a relative
of the wife had filed a suit thereon as OS.326 of 2012 for
specific performance. The defendant had filed a suit against
the plaintiff, her brother, father and the plaintiff in
OS.326 of 2012 for injunction against trespass into the
property. The suit for specific performance was dismissed
and the one for injunction was decreed. The appellant has
produced the judgment therein before this Court as
2025:KER:58628
additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. Therefore
the case of the defendant is to be accepted, he submitted.
We are unable to accept the contention. The plea of illegal
confinement, threat, coercion and blank signed papers have
already been negatived by us. There is nothing to link the
said suit with the present one. Noticeably, the respondent
herein instituted the suit for injunction only in the year
2014, as OS.No.118 of 2014. The counter statement in the
present Original Petition was filed by the husband on
27.05.2014. Thus the suit is evidently a counterblast to the
present proceeding.
17. The findings in the case are purely on facts and
are founded mainly on the oral evidence and circumstances.
The Family Court which had the opportunity to watch the
demeanor of the witnesses chose to accept the evidence
adduced from the side of the wife and found her case to be
2025:KER:58628
more probable. On a re-appreciation of the evidence we find
that the conclusion arrived at by the Family Court is a
possible one. There is no sufficient material to set aside
the finding and to arrive at a different conclusion.
Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. To Judge
2025:KER:58628
APPENDIX OF MAT.APPEAL 850/2015
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGEMENT IN
O.S.NO.326/2012 AND O.S.NO.118/2014 DATED
20.07.2016.
-----
