Kerala High Court
Sheeba @ Aleyamma vs Sibichan Joseph @ Sebastian on 11 August, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:59783
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 397 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.01.2017 IN OP NO.206 OF 2014 OF
FAMILY COURT, PALA
-----
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
SIBICHEN JOSEPH @ SEBASTIAN,
S/O. JOSEPH, 46 YEARS OF AGE,RESIDING AT MANIVELIL
HOUSE,RAMAPURAM BAZAR P.O, PALA,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 576.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM
SMT.MERRY GEORGE
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
SHEEBA @ ALEYAMMA
D/O. JOSEPH, 38 YEAR OF AGE, RESIDING AT PENGATTUCHALIL
HOUSE, KALATHOOR P.O, KURAVILANGADU VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 633.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.BABU KUMAR
SRI.VISHNU BABU
SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
11.08.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.941/2017, OP(FC) 642/2018, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:59783
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 941 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.01.2017 IN OP NO.206 OF 2014 OF
FAMILY COURT, PALA
-----
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SHEEBA @ ALEYAMMA
D/O JOSEPH, AGED 39 YEARS, PENGATUCHALIL HOUSE,
KALATHOOR P.O, KURAVILANGADU TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SHRI.P.BABU KUMAR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
SIBICHAN JOSEPH @ SEBASTIAN
S/O JOSEPH, AGED 48 YEARS, MANIVELIL HOUSE, RAMAPURAM
BAZHAR P.O, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM
SMT.MERRY GEORGE
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
11.08.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.397/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:59783
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1947
OP (FC) NO. 642 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2018 IN CMP NO.71 OF 2017 OF
FAMILY COURT, PALA
-----
PETITIONER/S:
SHEEBA @ ALEYAMMA
D/O. JOSEPH, AGED 39 YEARS, PENGATTUCHALIL HOUSE,
KALATHOOR P.O, KURAVILANGADU TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SHRI.P.BABU KUMAR
RESPONDENT:
SIBICHAN JOSEPH @ SEBASTIAN
S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 48 YEARS, MANIVELIL HOUSE, RAMAPURAM
BAZHAR P.O, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM
SMT.MERRY GEORGE
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
11.08.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.397/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:59783
SATHISH NINAN &
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat. Appeal Nos.941, 397 of 2017 &
O.P.(FC) No.642 of 2018
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 11th day of August, 2025
J U D G M E N T
Sathish Ninan, J.
The original petition filed by the wife against the
husband, seeking return of gold ornaments was decreed in
part by the Family Court. The husband and wife challenge the
decree, in so far as it is against them, in the respective
appeals. The Original Petition relates to the rejection of
an application for attachment in MC proceeding for
maintenance.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on
06.01.2001. According to the wife, at the time of marriage
she was provided with 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments and
₹ 5 lakhs. It is claimed that during the year 2013, a
further amount of ₹ 10 lakhs was given. The parties fell
apart. It is alleged that 50 sovereigns of ornaments and the
Mat. Appeal Nos.941, 397 of 2017 &
2025:KER:59783
money were misappropriated by the respondent. The wife seeks
for return of the gold ornaments and money.
3. The husband denied the claim that at the time of
marriage the petitioner had 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments.
According to him, the petitioner had only approximately 40
sovereigns of gold ornaments. The claim regarding
entrustment of money, and the allegation of
misappropriation, were denied.
4. The Family Court granted a decree for the value of
50 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The claim for money was
disallowed.
5. We have heard learned counsel on either side.
6. While in the original petition, the wife claimed
that at the time of marriage she had 65 sovereigns of gold
ornaments, as PW1, the claim was that she had 60 sovereigns
of gold ornaments. The father of the petitioner was examined
as PW2. He has also deposed that the daughter was provided
with 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments and that 50 sovereigns
Mat. Appeal Nos.941, 397 of 2017 &
2025:KER:59783
were misappropriated by the husband.
7. According to the respondent, the wife had only 40
sovereigns of gold ornaments. DWs.2 and 3 viz. the father
and mother of the respondent also deposed accordingly. From
Ext.A1 wedding photograph it cannot be said whether the
quantity of gold ornaments were 60 sovereigns or 40
sovereigns. There is no material to find the actual quantity
of gold ornaments. In the light thereof we are constrained
to accept the quantity of gold ornaments as 40 sovereigns.
8. Now coming to the alleged misappropriation, Ext.A9
series shows that the respondent was regularly pledging
ornaments with Ramapuram Regional Service Co-operative Bank
during the period from 2008-2013. Though the respondent
would contend that the pledged ornaments belonged to his
relatives, none of such relatives are named or examined. The
above, coupled with the evidence of PW1 indicates that the
respondent had misappropriated the gold ornaments of the
wife.
Mat. Appeal Nos.941, 397 of 2017 &
2025:KER:59783
9. It is the case of the petitioner that she had 10
sovereigns with her. Therefore it has to be found that, from
out of the 40 sovereigns, the respondent was dealing with
only the remaining 30 sovereigns. The petitioner-wife is
entitled for a decree for the said quantity.
10. This Court has in Syamini S Nair And Others v. Sreekanth R
2022 (2) KLT 896 held that the wife is entitled to the value of
the gold ornaments as on the date of recovery. The Family
Court has granted a decree for an amount of ₹ 11,20,000/-
only, in lieu of the gold ornaments. The decree is liable to
be modified accordingly.
11. With regard to execution of the maintenance claim
the petitioner is only to be relegated to the appropriate
remedies under law. No directions are called for in the O.P.
In the result, these appeals are allowed. The decree
and judgment of the Family Court are set aside. The original
petition will stand decreed directing the respondent-husband
to return 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments within a period of
Mat. Appeal Nos.941, 397 of 2017 &
2025:KER:59783
one month from today, on failure of which, the petitioner-
wife is entitled to realise the value of such gold ornaments
as on the date of its realisation. The original petition is
dismissed without prejudice to the rights. No costs.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. To Judge
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 642/2018
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THAT PETITION NO.CMP.NO.
71/2017 IN M.C. 2/15 BEFORE THE HON'BLE
FAMILY COURT, DATED 31.8.2018.
ANNEXURE B STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THE DUES TOWARDS
MAINTENANCE TO BE PAID TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 31.8.2018. IN CMP.71/17 IN MC.NO.
2/2015 IN FAMILY COURT PALA.
ANNEXURE C TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THAT OBJECTION IN CMP
71/2017 IN MC. 2/2015 DATED 13.9.2018.
ANNEXURE D PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DISMISSING CMP 71/2017
IN MC.2/2015 DATED 25.9.2018
ANNEXURE E TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN M.P.
NO.234/18 IN CMP NO.71/17 DATED 14.12.2018
ANNEXURE F TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RC PARTICULARS OF THE
VEHICLE KL-67-B-2052 DATED 05-10-2018.
-----
