Kerala High Court
Varghese.V@Biju vs Aneeja.K.John on 18 August, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:61619
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 674 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.04.2018 IN OP NO.5 OF 2014 OF
FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
VARGHESE.V@BIJU
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. K.V VARGHESE,KURICHIYIL
KIZHAKKETHIL, ENETHANOLICKAL BHAGAM, PADIMON
P.O,KEEZHVAIPUR MURI, MALLAPALLY VILLAGE &
TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
ANEEJA.K.JOHN
AGED 42 YEARS, D/O. K.T JOHN,KUDUMATHA HOUSE,
PIRALASSERY MURI & P.O,MULAKUZHA VILLAGE,
CHENGANNUR TALUK,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN 689 122.
BY ADVS.SRI.E.C.POULOSE
SMT.BOBBY RAPHEAL.C
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
18.08.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.675/2018, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:61619
Mat.Appeal Nos.674 and 675 of 2018
-: 2 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 675 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.04.2018 IN OP NO.806 OF 2013
OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
VARGHESE.V @ BIJU, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. K.V
VARGHESE, KURICHIYIL KIZHAKKETHIL,EENTHANOLICKAL
BHAGAM, PADIMON P.O,KEEZHVAIPUR MURI, MALLAPALLY
VILLAGE & TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
ANEEJA K.JOHN, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O. K.T
JOHN,KUDUMATHA HOUSE, PIRALASSERY MURI &
P.O,MULAKUZHA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK,ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT PIN 689 122.
BY ADVS.SRI.E.C.POULOSE
SMT.BOBBY RAPHEAL.C
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
18.08.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.674/2018, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:61619
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat.Appeal Nos.674 and 675 of 2018
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
Sathish Ninan, J.
These appeals arise from the proceedings between the
husband and wife. The husband is the appellant in these
appeals.
2. Mat.Appeal No.674 of 2018 arises from O.P.No.5 of
2014. The original petition was one filed by the husband,
seeking declaration of his absolute title over 85 cents of
property. The original petition was dismissed by the Family
Court.
3. Mat.Appeal No.675 of 2018 arises from O.P.No.806
of 2013. The original petition was filed by the wife against
the husband claiming damages of Rs.25,00,000/- for
defamation and mental agony. The Family Court, while
2025:KER:61619
Mat.Appeal Nos.674 and 675 of 2018
declining the claim for defamation, granted a decree for
Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony.
4. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on
14.06.2000. The husband was employed abroad. According to
the husband, 85 cents of property was purchased by him under
Ext.B1 Sale Deed dated 23.01.2004 by utilising his funds.
Since the relationship between the parties was very cordial,
the name of the wife also was included in the sale deed. The
entire sale consideration had proceeded from the husband. He
seeks for declaration of his absolute title over the
property.
5. The wife claimed that the purchase under Ext.B1
was with her contribution also and challenged the exclusive
right claimed by the husband.
6. With regard to the claim for damages, the
allegation of the wife is that the husband was a person who
always doubted her character. The interactions of the wife
with other men were all viewed with suspicion. Allegations
2025:KER:61619
Mat.Appeal Nos.674 and 675 of 2018
were being made of she having extramarital relationships.
While she was working at a hospital as the secretary of a
Doctor, allegations were made against her of having illicit
connections with the Doctor. The allegations went to such an
extent that the wife had to quit the job and had to withdraw
herself from the public. She claimed damages for defamation
and mental suffering. The husband justified the allegations.
It was contended that the allegations made by him were based
on the direct information and also the information received
through his friends and relatives. He prayed for rejection
of the claim.
7. The Family Court held that going by the evidence
on record, the wife had also contributed for the purchase of
the property. Accordingly, the prayer for declaration of
exclusive title of the husband was rejected. An amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- was awarded to the wife as damages for mental
agony.
8. We have heard Shri.Joseph P. Alex, the learned
2025:KER:61619
Mat.Appeal Nos.674 and 675 of 2018
counsel on behalf of the appellant-husband and Smt.Boby
Rapheal C., the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent-
wife.
9. The marriage between the parties was on
14.06.2000. Ext.B1 is the Sale Deed dated 23.01.2004. It
stands in the joint names of the husband and wife. The case
of the husband is that the purchase was through his father.
The attestors to Ext.B1 Sale Deed are the parents of the
husband. At the time of marriage and even at the time of
Ext.B1 Sale Deed, the husband was abroad. Ext.B2 is the
agreement for sale in respect of the property. It recites
the payment of an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards advance sale
consideration. The first witness therein is the husband's
father. The sale deed was on 23.01.2004. The stamp papers
were purchased on 22.01.2004. The sale consideration is
Rs.6,00,000/-. Ext.B4 Bank passbook reveals the withdrawal
of an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on 21.01.2004. Ext.B3
evidences that the father had availed a loan of
2025:KER:61619
Mat.Appeal Nos.674 and 675 of 2018
Rs.1,00,000/- from a Bank on 20.01.2004. It is the husband's
claim that the remaining amount was obtained from KSFE. The
wife admitted the existence of a 'Chitty' in her name with
KSFE. As PW1, she admitted that the payment of its
installments was by the husband. The deposition reads thus;
"2 ലക ര പയ ട ച ട ചചർന ?
ട (Q)
ണ ഉണയ രയ
ചനരന
.
(A) ആച ട യ ട തവണകട
1 ആ ടഎത ർകDirect അവ ട
ന നഅയ കയ യ ?ര (Q)
ചന അല. (A) പ ടന? (Q) പണ അയച
തന ര ന.ഞ ൻടക ണഅ
. (A) "യ
The wife claimed that the prizing of the chitty was in the
year 2005. She assured to produce proof with regard to the
same. However, no documents were produced.
10. On the other hand, the claim of the wife is that
she had paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards purchase of
the property. According to her, she raised an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- by sale of the trees standing in her father's
property, and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was borrowed from
her friend (PW4). Though the claim is that the trees
standing in her father's property was sold, the father is
2025:KER:61619
Mat.Appeal Nos.674 and 675 of 2018
not examined. The wife as PW1 was not able to depose
anything relating to the alleged sale. With regard to the
borrowal of Rs.1,00,000/- from PW4, though the claim of PW4
is that the amount was obtained from her father, he is not
examined. She is not aware from where her father raised the
amount. No documents are produced to evidence such loan
transaction. In the proof affidavit, she does not swear as
to how much amount she had given or when it was given. There
is only a vague statement that amount was given in the year
2004 for purchase of property. Her cross examination reveals
that but for the acquaintance by working in the hospital
they did not have any intimate relationship. So also, it
appears that the period of acquaintance was of 2 to 3 years.
She deposed,
"അത യത സ%ക ര& ദ (ഖങ ആവശ&ങ അന,ജ ന ങച
പങ വയ ന
സ ഹചര& ഉണ യ ര ന ലചല
? (Q) ഉണ യ ര ന . ല
(A)
ഒര ശ പതത യ ടല
രണ Dept - ക ൽചജ ല ടചയ നപര ചയ മ തതചമ
ന ങൾതമ ൽഉണ യ ര ന ള ചവ
? (Q) അടത
. (A)".
A reading of the deposition of PW4 in its entirety does not
2025:KER:61619
Mat.Appeal Nos.674 and 675 of 2018
inspire the confidence to find that she had obtained the
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from her father and had lend that
amount to PW1.
11. The evidence as above sufficiently indicate that
the sale consideration proceeded not from the wife but from
the husband. The above materials have been overlooked by the
Family Court, while holding to the contrary. The finding of
the Family Court is liable to be set aside and we do so.
12. With regard to the claim for damages, the wife has
alleged that the husband was of a doubting character and had
been harassing her making false allegations of her having
illicit relationship with other men. As was noticed first
above, husband's stand is to justify the same. A reading of
the objections filed by him to the original petition
categorically reveals that he had been making allegations
against her of having illicit relationship with a doctor in
2025:KER:61619
Mat.Appeal Nos.674 and 675 of 2018
the hospital where she had worked, with the students who
studied at a computer centre run by her, as against her co-
workers when she stood as a candidate in the Panchayat
election, and even as against a tailor who took measurement
for her blouse. Evidently, the claim of the wife that she
had suffered mental trauma on the allegations of the
husband, was justified. The husband could not adduce any
evidence to substantiate his allegations. The Family Court
while granting a decree for damages of Rs.5,00,000/- had due
consideration to the above aspects. No materials could be
placed before us to overturn the same. We are in agreement
with the finding arrived at by the Family Court. The decree
warrants no interference.
Resultantly, Mat.Appeal No.674 of 2018 is allowed. The
judgment of the Family Court is set aside and O.P.No.5 of
2014 is allowed. Mat.Appeal No.675 of 2018 is dismissed
2025:KER:61619
Mat.Appeal Nos.674 and 675 of 2018
affirming the judgment of the Family Court. Parties to bear
their respective costs.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
yd
2025:KER:61619
Mat.Appeal Nos.674 and 675 of 2018
APPENDIX OF MAT.APPEAL 674/2018
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R-1(a) CERTIFIED COPY OF FIELD NO. 160 OF
MALLAPPALLI VILLAGE ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER, MALLAPPALLI,
