Kerala High Court
Neethu vs Shabir on 8 August, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:59414
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 1093 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.06.2015 IN OP NO.1134 OF 2012 OF
FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR
-----
APPELLANT:
NEETHU,
AGED 22 YEARS,
D/O.CHANDANAPARAMBIL PADIKASALAKKARAN,
MUHAMMED ABDUL RAHIMAN, CHAVAKKAD VILLAGE,DESOM, TALUK.
BY ADV SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 SHABIR,
AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O.NANDIPULATH SEETHI, MATHILAKAM PUTHIYAKAVUDESOM,
PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLURTALUK, PIN 680001.
2 SEETHI,
AGED 67 YEARS ,
S/O.NANDIPULATH ABDUL KHADER,
MATHILAKAM PUTHIYAKAVU DESOM,
PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE,KODUNGALLUR TALUK-680001.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ
SHRI. AJMAL V. A.
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
08.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:59414
SATHISH NINAN &
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat Appeal No.1093 of 2015
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 8th day of August, 2025
J U D G M E N T
Sathish Ninan, J.
The original petition filed by the wife, seeking return
of gold ornaments, was dismissed by the Family Court. She is
in appeal.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on
23.05.2011. According to the wife, at the time of marriage
she was provided with 130 sovereigns of gold ornaments.
After the marriage 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments were
entrusted by the wife to the husband, which the second
respondent father-in-law kept in an almirah under his lock
and key. On 20.07.2011 the husband returned to his place of
employment at Gulf. The parties fell apart. The original
petition is filed seeking return of the 50 sovereigns of
gold ornaments.
2025:KER:59414
3. The respondents, in the counter, denied the
allegations of entrustment of 50 sovereigns of gold
ornaments. They also raised a counter claim for return of
23.7 sovereigns of gold ornaments claimed to have been given
to the wife at the time of marriage.
4. The Family Court dismissed the original petition and
allowed the counter claim.
5. We have heard the learned counsel on either side.
6. With regard to the quantity of gold ornaments that
the wife had at the time of marriage, Exts.B9 and B10 are
the photographs taken at the time of marriage. The
photographs prima facie suggest that the wife had so much
quantity of gold as claimed by her. The wife does not
dispute that in connection with the marriage she was
provided with 23.7 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the
side of the husband, in respect of which the counter claim
is raised. It is also not in dispute that such ornaments
were provided at the time of engagement. Before this court,
2025:KER:59414
the appellant has along with I.A No.3839 of 2015, filed
under Order XLVII Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure
produced bills regarding purchase of ornaments by her
father. The bills, together, are only for 78.52 sovereigns.
When the above aspects are considered together, her claim
that in addition to the 23.7 sovereigns, she had 130
sovereigns does not appear to be correct. It is only
probable that the 130 sovereigns of gold ornaments, which
the wife claimed to have been available with her at the time
of marriage, included the 23.7 sovereigns given from the
respondent's side. After deducting the same, the quantity of
gold ornaments which belonged to the wife is approximately
106 sovereigns. Even according to the wife, 80 sovereigns of
gold ornaments are with her and they are kept in her
father's bank locker. Therefore what remains is only 26
sovereigns.
7. Admittedly the wife was a BDS student at the time of
marriage and was residing at her parental house in
2025:KER:59414
connection with her studies. She used to be at the
matrimonial home during holidays. Since she was a student
and was going to college, and since she was residing at both
the parental home and the matrimonial home, it is only
probable that some quantity of gold ornaments(50 sovereigns
as claimed by her) were left at the matrimonial home. This
is probabilised by yet another circumstance.
8. When the relationship between the parties got
strained, there was a mediation at the intervention of the
Mahal Committees of the parties. Ext.X6 is the communication
issued between the committees. Therein, a reference is made
to the gold ornaments belonging to the wife to be returned
to her. We are not to be understood to be relying on the
said documents to fix the liability upon the husband; but,
Ext.X6 definitely suggests that there was at least a claim
by the wife with regard to her gold ornaments allegedly with
the respondents. This, coupled with the circumstances noted
above, to an extent fortifies the wife's claim. The Family
2025:KER:59414
Court has discarded Ext.X6 stating that it was only in
Ext.X6 that the claim for gold ornaments was raised for the
first time. There it is to be noticed that the attempt
before the Committees were to reconcile the differences and
to save the family. The endeavour was not to separate the
couple. This is evident from the contents of Ext.X1 to X5
communications between the Mahal Committees and the parties.
As is evident from Ext.X1 dated 25.06.2012 it is only
therein that the committee has expressed that the attempt
for the settlement has failed. Noticeably Ext.X6
communication is thereafter. Therefore, the said document
ought not have been discarded.
9. Thus on a totality of the circumstances it comes out
that at the time of marriage the wife had approximately 130
sovereigns of gold ornaments which included the 23.7
sovereigns gifted from the husband's side. The wife admits
that she is in possession of 80 sovereigns. The remaining 50
sovereigns are with the respondents. Such quantity includes
2025:KER:59414
their 23.7 sovereigns. The wife is entitled to recover her
remaining gold ornaments weighing 26 sovereigns from the
respondents. The appeal is liable to be allowed to the above
extent.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The decree and
judgment in the original petition and the counter claim are
set aside. The O.P will stand decreed directing the
respondents to return 26 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the
petitioner within one month from today, on failure of which,
the petitioner shall be entitled to realise its market value
at the time of recovery. The counter claim is dismissed. No
costs.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy// P.S. To Judge
