[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Divya .G vs Baiju on 16 December, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:96675
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2016
AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 21.03.2016 IN OP NO.1464 OF
2013 OF FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL
-----
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 BAIJU
S/O. SASIDHARAN,VETTUKATTIL VEEDU, KULAMUTTOM,
MANAMBOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIL TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST.
2 BIJI
D/O. SASIDHARAN, SREE SAILAM, KEEZHATTINGAL P.O.,
KEEZHATTINGAL DESOM AND VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIL TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST.
BY ADVS.
SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
SMT.ANITHA MATHAI MUTHIRENTHY
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 DIVYA G.,
D/O. GIRIJA, DIVYA BHAVAN, PARUMKULAM P.O. MANAMBOOR
VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIL TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST.
2 RICHA, AGED 6 YEARS, MINOR
DIVYA BHAVAN, PERUMKULAM P.O., MANAMBOOR VILLAGE,
CHIRAYINKIL TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST.
2025:KER:96675
MAT.APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2016 -2-
BY ADV SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
16.12.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.756/2016, 757/2016 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:96675
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 756 OF 2016
AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 21.03.2016 IN OP NO.1438 OF
2013 OF FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL
-----
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
BAIJU
S/O.SASIDHARAN, VETTUKATTIL VEEDU, KULAMUTTOM,
MANAMBOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIL THALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
SMT.ANITHA MATHAI MUTHIRENTHY
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
DIVYA
D/O.MOHANAN, DIVYA BHAVAN, PALAMKONAM, PERUMKULAM P.O.,
ALAMCODE, MANAMBOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIL TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
16.12.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.582/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:96675
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 757 OF 2016
AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 21.03.2016 IN OP NO.402 OF
2014 OF FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL
-----
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
BAIJU
S/O.SASIDHARAN,VETTUKATTIL VEEDU,KULAMUTTOM,MANAMBOOR
VILLAGE,CHIRAYINKIL TALUK,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
SMT.ANITHA MATHAI MUTHIRENTHY
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
DIVYA
D/O.GIRIJA,DIVYABHAVAN,PALAMKONAM,PERUMKULAM.P.O,
ALAMCODE,MANAMBOOR VILLGE,
CHIRAYINKIL TALUK,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695001.
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
16.12.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.582/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:96675
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 912 OF 2016
AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 21.03.2016 IN OP NO.1464 OF
2013 OF FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL
-----
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 DIVYA .G.
D/O.GIRIJA, AGED 31 YEARS, DIVYA BHAVAN, PERUMKULAM
P.O., MANAMBOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIL TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
2 RICHA
AGED 7 1/2 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN DIVYA G., DIVYA BHAVAN, PERUMKULAM
P.O., MANAMBOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIL TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 BAIJU
AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.SASIDHARAN, VETTUKATTIL, KULAMUTTOM
P.O., KAVALAYOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIL TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695101.
2 BIJI
AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.SASIDHARAN, SREE SAILAM,
KEEZHATTINGAL P.O., KEEZHATTINGAL DESOM, CHIRAYINKIL
TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695101.
2025:KER:96675
MAT.APPEAL NO. 912 OF 2016 -2-
BY ADV SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
16.12.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.582/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:96675
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
CO NO. 135 OF 2025
ARISING FROM Mat.Appeal NO.582 OF 2016 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
-----
CROSS OBJECTORS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 DIVYA.G.,
AGED 41 YEARS,
D/O GIRIJA, DIVYA BHAVAN, PALAMKONAM, PERUNKULAM P.O.,
ALAMCODE, MANAMBOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695303.
2 RICHA,
AGED 17 YEARS,
D/O DIVYA.G., DIVYA BHAVAN, PALAMKONAM, PERUNKULAM
P.O., ALAMCODE, MANAMBOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU
TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, MINOR, REPRESENTED
BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, DIVYA.G., D/O
GIRIJA, AGED 41 YEARS, DIVYA BHAVAN, PALAMKONAM,
PERUNKULAM P.O., ALAMCODE, MANAMBOOR VILLAGE,
CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695303.
BY ADV SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
2025:KER:96675
CO NO. 135 OF 2025 -2-
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 BAIJU,
AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O SASIDHARAN, VETTUKATTIL HOUSE, KULAMUTTOM P.O.,
MANAMBOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695304.
2 BIJI,
AGED 49 YEARS,
D/O SASIDHARAN, SREE SHAILAM, KEEZHATTINGAL P.O.,
KEEZHATTINGAL DESOM AND VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695304.
THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 16.12.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.582/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:96675
SATHISH NINAN &
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat. Appeal Nos.582, 912, 756, 757 of 2016 &
C.O. No.135 of 2025 in Mat. Appeal No.582 of 2016
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 16th day of December, 2025
J U D G M E N T
Sathish Ninan, J.
Mat. Appeal No.582/2016 and Mat. Appeal No.912/2016 are by
the respondents and the petitioners respectively, in OP
1464/2013. The original petition was filed inter alia for
recovery of gold ornaments, declaration of title, recovery of
money. The O.P was decreed in part. Challenging the part of the
decree against the respective parties, they are in appeal.
2. Mat. Appeal No.757/2016 is by the respondent (husband) in
OP 402/2014, challenging the decree for divorce granted at the
instance of the wife. Mat. Appeal No.756/2016 is filed by the
petitioner-husband challenging the dismissal of his original
petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
3. It is conceded before us that Mat. Appeal No.756/2016,
Mat. Appeal No.757/2016, and Mat. Appeal No.912/2016 are not
Mat. Appeal No.582/2016 &
con. cases
2025:KER:96675
pursued. Therefore, we confine our discussions to Mat. Appeal
No.582/2016. The reliefs claimed in OP 1464/2013 from which the
Mat Appeal arises, are as under:-
(i) Recovery of 76 sovereigns of gold ornaments.
(ii) Recovery of ₹ 1 lakh entrusted as pocket money.
(iii) Recovery of ₹ 2 lakhs given for purchase of property.
(iv) Recovery of ₹ 3,10,000/- withdrawn from the Bank
account of the petitioner-wife.
(v) Recovery of ₹ 5 lakhs borrowed from the petitioner's
mother.
(vi) Declaration that Sale Deed No.406/2013 is a sham
document.
(vii) Declaration of title of the petitioner over the
property covered by document No.406/2013.
The court granted a decree for: -
(i) Return of gold ornaments.
(ii) Recovery of ₹ 1 lakh
(iii) Declaring document No.406/2013 as a sham document and
declaring petitioner's title over the property covered
under the document.
Mat. Appeal No.582/2016 &
con. cases
2025:KER:96675
4. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on
18.08.2003. According to the petitioner, at the time of marriage
her parents provided her with 80 sovereigns of gold ornaments. So
also, an amount of ₹ 1 lakh was given to the first respondent-
husband as pocket money. Within a week of the marriage the
husband obtained 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the
petitioner for wiping off his debts incurred for marriage. In
July 2004 she was taken abroad along with her husband where he
was employed. During the year 2005, a further quantity of 40
sovereigns of gold ornaments were utilised by the husband for
purchase of a property, on the assurance that property would be
purchased in the name of the petitioner. However, subsequently it
was learnt that the property was purchased in the joint names of
the husband and the wife.
5. In March 2010, the aforesaid property was sold for the
purpose of clearing off the debts allegedly incurred by the
husband in purchasing two items of immovable properties under
Sale Deed Nos.367/2010 and 368/2010. The balance sale
consideration available was utilised to purchase another 12 cents
of property.
Mat. Appeal No.582/2016 &
con. cases
2025:KER:96675
6. In March 2013, the husband wanted to raise ₹ 50 lakhs,
for starting a business. Making the petitioner and her mother
believe that a security deed is being executed for the purpose of
availing loan from an individual, the petitioner was made to
execute a document and the mother as a witness. It was
subsequently understood that, it was a sale deed in favour of the
husband's sister. The document is vitiated by misrepresentation.
On these allegations the original petition was filed.
7. The first respondent in the original petition, who is the
husband, filed objection (written statement) through the second
respondent, his sister, as his power of attorney holder. The
allegations in the original petition were denied. It was
contended that the wife had only approximately 15 sovereigns of
gold ornaments at the time of marriage. The claim regarding
payment of pocket money and borrowal of other amounts from the
petitioner and her mother were denied. It was contended that the
sale deed No.406/2013 is a valid document supported by valid
consideration. The allegation of misrepresentation was also
denied.
Mat. Appeal No.582/2016 &
con. cases
2025:KER:96675
8. The Family Court found that the petitioner-wife had 80
sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. It was also
found that 76 sovereigns of gold ornaments were misappropriated
by the husband. The claim of the petitioner that ₹ 1 lakh was
given to the husband as pocket money, was upheld. So also,
finding that document No.406/2013 is a sham document, the title
of the wife over the property was declared.
9. We have heard the learned counsel on either side.
10. The first question to be determined is with regard to
the quantity of the gold ornaments that the wife had at the time
of marriage. While according to the wife she had 80 sovereigns of
gold ornaments, according to the husband she had only
approximately 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It has come out in
evidence that, the wife's father, who was examined as RW3, was
working in gulf countries for a long time. Ext.B10 is the copy of
his passport. Ext.B10 substantiates the same. Ext.B2 series and
Ext.A11 are the marriage photographs produced from either side. A
comparison of the same proves the genuineness of the wife's claim
and establishes that the claim of the husband that the wife had
only approximately 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of
Mat. Appeal No.582/2016 &
con. cases
2025:KER:96675
marriage, is not correct. The photographs corroborate the wife's
claim and the oral testimony of her parents as RWs.2 and 3 that
she had 80 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage.
We concur with the trial court in having held so.
11. The husband claimed that, at the time of marriage he was
presented with only a ring by the wife. But from Ext.B2 series
photograph it is seen that the wife had adorned him with a chain.
In his cross examination, he could not deny it.
12. It is the wife's contention that, after the marriage
about 30 sovereigns were utilised by the husband, for clearing
his debts, which were incurred in connection with the marriage.
The husband claimed to be well of financially, he was not able to
substantiate his financial condition. He could not produce any
documents regarding his bank accounts or deposits. Though he
claimed that he was working in gulf countries for 20 years,
admittedly, he had not purchased any property prior to the
marriage. His claim is that, after two years of his marriage he
borrowed an amount of ₹ 2,40,000/- from his mother's sister, for
purchase of the property. She was examined as PW4. PW4 is a
widow. Her source of income was not proved. So also, the payment
Mat. Appeal No.582/2016 &
con. cases
2025:KER:96675
of any amounts by PW4 was also not proved.
13. The claim of the wife is that, she was told by her
husband that utilising 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments a property
could be purchased in her name and she was persuaded to accede
the same. Accordingly 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments were
utilised for purchase of the property. However, subsequently she
learnt that the property was purchased in the joint names of
herself and her husband. Considering the facts as noticed above,
the claim of the wife appears to be probable. We concur with the
trial court in having held so.
14. It is not in dispute that the property which was
purchased in the joint names, was subsequently sold for an amount
of ₹ 4 lakhs. It is the case of the husband that part of the
amount was utilised for clearing off the debts, and utilising the
remaining amount, 12 cents of property was purchased in the names
of the husband and wife. PW1 deposed that, at the time of sale he
had a debt of ₹ 6 lakhs. It is to be remembered that such
statement is on the face of his averments in his pleading that he
had no financial constraints.
Mat. Appeal No.582/2016 &
con. cases
2025:KER:96675
15. It is the case of the wife that, while they were about
to return to the native place from abroad the husband asked her
to wear only 4 sovereigns of gold ornaments and to keep the
remaining 6 sovereigns of gold ornaments at their place of
residence and accordingly only 4 sovereigns were carried on by
her. Noticing the conduct of the parties as above, the trial
court has found the claim to be probable. We find no reason to
differ from such inference.
16. The above materials sufficiently indicate that, from out
of the 80 sovereigns of gold ornaments that the wife had, her
claim that 30 sovereigns were utilised for clearing off the debts
of the husband and that 40 sovereigns were utilised for
purchasing the property, and that the consideration obtained by
sale of such property was utilised for payment of the debts of
the husband and for purchasing another extent of 12 cents of
property, and that 6 sovereigns were kept at their place of
residence abroad, are probable. The above proves the
appropriation of 76 sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to the
wife, by the husband.
Mat. Appeal No.582/2016 &
con. cases
2025:KER:96675
17. It is the case of the wife that, while it was the
understanding that the property to be acquired by sale of the 40
sovereigns of gold ornaments would be acquired in her name, the
documents was obtained in the joint names of the husband and the
wife. It is her allegation that, the 12 cents of property which
was subsequently acquired after sale of the earlier property was
also purchased in joint names, and that by misrepresentation and
fraud, the husband purportedly conveyed the property in favour of
his sister. The wife alleges that it is a sham transaction. The
couple returned to the native place from abroad on 11.03.2013 and
the conveyance in favour of the husband's sister, who is the
second respondent, was on 01.04.2013.
18. While the wife alleges that the transaction is
unsupported by consideration and is sham, the second respondent
contended that the sale consideration was raised by pledge of the
gold ornaments. She relied on copy of the gold loan receipt to
substantiate her claim. It is the case of the wife that she and
her mother were deceived by the husband in causing execution of
the sale deed by misrepresenting to them that it was a security
for the loan to be availed for his business. The stamp papers
Mat. Appeal No.582/2016 &
con. cases
2025:KER:96675
were purchased on 31.03.2013 and the sale deed was executed
immediately. The necessity to sell the property to the husband's
sister at that point of time, in a hurry, was not brought out.
The pledge of the gold ornaments by the second respondent
(husband's sister) was on 13.03.2013. It is almost 15 days prior
to the execution of the sale deed. There is no evidence that at
that time there was even an agreement for sale between the
parties. Though the husband claimed that he had a liability of
₹ 3,00,000/-, the sale consideration for the sale to the second
respondent sister is only ₹ 2,40,000/-. The property is not
demarcated. No mutation is effected pursuant to the sale. From
the cross-examination of the second respondent it is evident that
she is not sure about the boundaries of the property and also as
to who are the neighbours. On the above materials, the Family
Court found that the case of the wife that the conveyance in
favour of the husband's sister is sham, is probable.
19. We do notice that, the original acquisition of the
property was by utilising the gold ornaments of the wife. Under
such circumstances, the claim of the wife could either be for
gold ornaments or for the property. There could not be a decree
Mat. Appeal No.582/2016 &
con. cases
2025:KER:96675
for both gold ornaments and the property purchased utilising the
same. Part of the gold ornaments have been appropriated for
clearing off the debts of the husband. Property in joint names is
claimed to have been assigned by the husband. The second
respondent, who was examined as PW3, deposed that the sale
consideration was paid to her brother.
20. Considering the entire facts as above, we deem it
appropriate that the wife be granted a decree for the 76
sovereigns gold ornaments. The decree of the Family Court,
insofar as it grants the decree in respect of immovable property
along with a decree for gold ornaments cannot be sustained. The
decree in respect of the immovable property is liable to be set
aside.
21. As regards the claim of ₹ 1 lakh, as noted by the Family
Court there is no specific cross-examination of RW3, the wife's
father, with regard to the payment of such amount as pocket
money. The Family Court noticed that, going by the custom and
practice the claim is probable. Having taken due note of the fact
that the wife is the only daughter and that he was employed at
Gulf country, the claim is probable.
Mat. Appeal No.582/2016 &
con. cases
2025:KER:96675
22. The Family Court having had the opportunity to watch the
demeanor of the witnesses chosen to accept the wife's claim.
Nothing could be demonstrated before us to find otherwise.
In the result Mat. Appeal No.582/2016 is allowed in apart.
The decree and judgment of the Family Court, insofar as it
granted a decree declaring the title of the wife over the
property covered under document No.406/2013 and declaring such
document to be a sham document is set aside. In all other
respects the decree and judgment of the Family Court will stand
affirmed. Mat. Appeal Nos.912/2016, 756/2016 and 757/2016 are
dismissed. Cross Objection No.135 of 2025 is allowed. No costs.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. To Judge
