[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sreekala Kumari C.S vs G.P. Praveen on 17 December, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
Mat.Appeal No.993 & 1158 of 2016
1
2025:KER:96717
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 993 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.04.2016 IN OP NO.117 OF 2014 OF
FAMILY COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SREEKALA KUMARI C.S.
AGED 31 YEARS, D/O.SUDARSANAN NAIR, ILIPURKKAL
VILAKATHU VEEDU, AYIRA P.O., KARODE VILLAGE,
NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPUAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SHRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SHRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SHRI.RAJA KANNAN
SHRI.CHETHAN KRISHNA R.
RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:
1 PRAVEEN
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, 'GOPI PRIYA',
MARKET ROAD, UCHAKKADA PO, NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
2 PADMAVATHY AMMA, AGED 67 YEARS
W/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, 'GOPI PRIYA', MARKET ROAD,
UCHAKKADA PO, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT.
Mat.Appeal No.993 & 1158 of 2016
2
2025:KER:96717
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.S.HARIDAS
SHRI.K.R.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR (PERUMBAVOOR)
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
10.12.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL.1158/2016, THE COURT ON
17.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal No.993 & 1158 of 2016
3
2025:KER:96717
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 1158 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.04.2016 IN OP NO.1093 OF 2012
OF FAMILY COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER:
SREEKALA KUMARI C.S.
AGED 31 YEARS, D/O. SUDARSANAN NAIR,
ILIPURAKKAL VILAKATHU VEEDU,
AYIRA P.O., KARODE VILLAGE,
NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SHRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SHRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SHRI.RAJA KANNAN
SHRI.CHETHAN KRISHNA R.
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
PRAVEEN
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. GOPINATHAN NAIR,
'GOPI PRIYA', MARKET ROAD,
UCHAKKADA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
Mat.Appeal No.993 & 1158 of 2016
4
2025:KER:96717
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.S.HARIDAS
SHRI.ROHIT HARIDAS NAIR
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
10.12.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL.993/2016, THE COURT ON
17.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal No.993 & 1158 of 2016
5
2025:KER:96717
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat.Appeal Nos.993 & 1158 OF 2016
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2025
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
In these appeals, the wife challenges the common judgment
pronounced by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The
learned Family Judge dismissed the petition filed by the wife
for recovery of gold and money and allowed the petition filed
by the husband for divorce.
2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they
were arrayed in O.P. No.117/2014, which was filed by the wife
against the husband and his relatives for recovery of gold and
money. In the said petition, the petitioner has alleged that,
at the time of her marriage, she was adorned with 75
sovereigns of gold ornaments. It is also alleged that she
received 4.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments as gifts from her
near relatives. At the time of the Marvuveedu function, her
Mat.Appeal No.993 & 1158 of 2016
2025:KER:96717
father gave Rs.25,000/- as a gift to the first respondent,
besides giving him household articles worth Rs.40,000/-. After
the marriage, the respondents obtained 75 sovereigns of gold
ornaments from her by representing that the same would be kept
in a locker; however, they misappropriated those ornaments, it
is alleged.
3. The respondents resisted the petition by contending
that the claim for recovery of gold ornaments and money is
only a counterblast to the husband's petition for divorce.
According to them, her family members had no financial
resources to give 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The
respondents further contended that they were unaware of the
quantity of gold ornaments adorned by her. At any rate, they
did not obtain any of her gold ornaments other than the
ornaments given to the first respondent at the time of
marriage. It is also alleged that, on 9.12.2011, the
petitioner deserted the first respondent and left the
matrimonial home after taking all her belongings, including
the gold ornaments.
Mat.Appeal No.993 & 1158 of 2016
2025:KER:96717
4. In O.P. No.1093/2012, the husband/respondent contended
that the wife was not interested in having a sexual
relationship with him and that she declared she was not ready
to have a child. He alleged that, from the very inception of
the marriage, he had been subjected to cruelty at the instance
of the wife. According to him, she frequently quarrelled with
him for flimsy reasons. It is further alleged that, from
9.12.2011 onwards, the petitioner/wife deserted him. The wife
denied these allegations.
5. In the joint trial of the above cases, on the side of
the husband, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A4 were
marked. On the side of the wife, CPW1 and CPW2 were examined
and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked. After evaluating the oral and
documentary evidence, the Family Court concluded that the
petitioner had no consistent case regarding the quantity of
gold ornaments to be recovered from the respondents.
Consequently, the court dismissed the petition for recovery of
gold ornaments. As the wife had not examined her father, the
claim for recovery of money and the value of household
Mat.Appeal No.993 & 1158 of 2016
2025:KER:96717
articles allegedly given by her father was also declined. The
court further held that the evidence on record justified the
claim for divorce on the ground of matrimonial cruelty and,
accordingly, granted a decree of divorce.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on both
sides.
7. The first question to be considered is whether the
petitioner is entitled to recover the gold ornaments and the
money claimed in the petition.
8. As per the written statement filed by the respondents,
they do not have a case that the petitioner had no gold
ornaments at the time of marriage. According to them, they do
not know the quantity of gold ornaments worn by her or whether
all those ornaments were made of gold. However, they
maintained that all her ornaments were in her possession. The
relevant part of the written statement reads as follows:
"വവിവവാഹദവിവസസം ഹർജവികകവി അണവിഞവിരുന്ന ആഭരണങ്ങൾ എത്ര പവൻ ഉണണ്ടെനന്നവാ
അണതെലവാസം സസ്വർണസം തെണന്ന ആനണവാ എനന്നവാ എതെവിർകകവികൾകക്ക് അറവിയവില.
Mat.Appeal No.993 & 1158 of 2016
2025:KER:96717
ആഭരണങ്ങൾ ഒനസം തെണന്ന എതെവിർകകവികണളെ ഏൽപവിചവിടവില. ഹർജവികകവിയുണട
ആഭരണങ്ങളസം മറ്റുണമലവാസം ടവിയവാൾ തെണന്നയവാണക്ക് സൂകവിചവിട്ടുള്ളതെക്ക്."
9. In order to prove the quantity of gold ornaments
possessed by the petitioner at the time of her marriage, she
relied on Exts.B1 to B3 documents. Exts.B1 and B3 are the
marriage photographs. Along with Ext.B3, the petitioner also
produced a compact disc containing the digital version of the
said photographs. It is evident from the photographs that the
petitioner was adorned with most of the ornaments she had
enlisted in the petition schedule. Exts.B1 and B3 were marked
without any objection. Even during cross-examination, no
challenge was raised against the genuineness of Exts.B1 and
B3. What was put to the petitioner with respect to the
photographs was only that they could not be relied upon to
determine whether all the ornaments seen therein were gold or
not. The respondents did not produce any marriage photographs
from their side. It is thus evident that the petitioner had
adorned most of the ornaments claimed in the petition.
10. The trial court observed that the petitioner had no
consistent case with respect to the quantity of gold ornaments
Mat.Appeal No.993 & 1158 of 2016
2025:KER:96717
worn by her. On a careful examination of the records, we find
that the said observation is not entirely correct. It is true
that, in Ext.A4 complaint given by the petitioner to the Dowry
Prohibition Authority, she stated that she was then in
possession of 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments. However, her
case that she had 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time
of marriage is specifically mentioned therein as well.
11. The petitioner further produced the Ext.B2 sales
estimate. The trial court did not act upon the Ext.B2 sales
estimate on the ground that there was no mention of such a
document in the original petition. When we consider the oral
evidence of the petitioner together with Exts.B1 and B3, we
find no reason to discard Ext.B2, though the name of purchaser
is not mentioned in it. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondents strenuously contended that Ext.B2 is only a sales
estimate. We cannot ignore the fact that sales of gold
ornaments against such estimates are not uncommon. Ext.B2
relates to 507.62 grams of gold ornaments, which is more or
less equal to 63.5 sovereigns. Though the petitioner claimed
Mat.Appeal No.993 & 1158 of 2016
2025:KER:96717
that she had received some ornaments as gifts, there is no
evidence to substantiate the same, and the said contention is
also not consistently stated either in the petition or in her
deposition. Therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that
the petitioner had at least 63.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments
at the time of her marriage.
12. After evaluating the oral evidence of CPW1, the
petitioner, we are of the view that her case that the gold
ornaments were misappropriated by the respondents is probable.
It is common knowledge that when a bride reaches the
matrimonial home after marriage, she may not be able to keep
all her gold ornaments in her personal possession. The
ornaments are usually kept in the possession of the husband or
his near relatives for safekeeping. In the present case, CPW1
specifically stated that all her gold ornaments were obtained
by the respondents under the pretext that they would be kept
in a locker. The respondents, on the other hand, contended
that they did not receive the ornaments and that the
Mat.Appeal No.993 & 1158 of 2016
2025:KER:96717
petitioner left the matrimonial home taking all her
belongings, including the gold ornaments.
13. The petitioner and the first respondent were married
on 22.05.2011, and she allegedly left the matrimonial home on
9.12.2011, which is after seven months. It is not probable
that she kept those gold ornaments in her personal possession
for seven months. In the above circumstances, the case
advanced by the petitioner that she had entrusted all her gold
ornaments with the respondents and that she has not received
the same till date appears to be more probable than the
version put forth by the respondents.
14. Nevertheless, the petitioner stated in Ext.A4 that
she was in possession of 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments. From
the facts and circumstances of the case, it is probable that
she might have retained at least 15 sovereigns of gold
ornaments with her for daily use. Therefore, she is entitled
to recover the remaining gold, viz. 48.5 sovereigns (63.5 -
15), from the respondents.
Mat.Appeal No.993 & 1158 of 2016
2025:KER:96717
15. As regards the claim for recovery of money and the
value of household articles, we concur with the opinion
expressed by the trial court that, when the petitioner failed
to examine her father, who allegedly gave those items to the
respondents, no order can be passed in that respect.
16. The next question to be considered is whether the
decree passed by the Family Court dissolving the marriage is
liable to be interfered with.
17. On an analysis of the oral evidence adduced by both
sides, we are of the view that no interference is warranted
with that order. PW1 has clearly narrated the circumstances
under which he was compelled to seek the relief of divorce.
There is no dispute that the parties have been living
separately since 9.12.2011. The wife did not file any
application for restitution of conjugal rights. Several
mediation attempts were made, but all ended in failure. The
petitioner/wife also deposed during the trial that she did not
want to continue the marital tie. In the above circumstances,
we find no reason to interfere with the said finding.
Mat.Appeal No.993 & 1158 of 2016
2025:KER:96717
In the result, Mat. Appeal No.993/2016 is partly allowed.
The respondents shall return 48.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments
to the appellant within two months, failing which the
appellant shall be entitled to recover the market value of the
gold ornaments as on the date of realisation from the
respondents and their assets.
Mat. Appeal No.1158/2016 is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
sv
