Kerala High Court
Pradeep vs Sindu Sukumaran on 5 February, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:9024
Mat.App.142/2015
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 16TH MAGHA, 1946
MAT.APPEAL NO. 142 OF 2015
OP NO.740 OF 2012 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
PRADEEP,
S/O.KOLATHAPILLY SARASWATHY, MANKIDI DESOM,
PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.
BY ADV SRI.T.N.MANOJ
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
SINDU SUKUMARAN
D/O.SUKUMARAN, VELLATHERY HOUSE, ARIMPOOR P.O.,
KAIPILLY ROAD, NEAR KALARI TEMPLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.N.ABHILASH
SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
27.01.2025, THE COURT ON 05.02.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:9024
Mat.App.142/2015
..2..
JUDGMENT
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.
Challenging the judgment dated 31.10.2014 in OP No.740 of
2012 on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur, the husband has
come up in appeal.
2. The original petition was filed by the wife for return
of 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its equivalent value and a
sum of ₹50,000/- given to the husband. The Family Court directed
return of 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its equivalent
value @ ₹20,000/- per sovereign with 6% interest from the date
of the order till realization. The claim for return of ₹50,000/-
was declined by the Family Court. No appeal has been filed by
the wife.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to
as 'husband' and 'wife'.
4. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on
22.05.2005. A girl child was born in the wedlock. According to
the wife, at the time of marriage, she was provided with 25
2025:KER:9024
..3..
sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹50,000/- by her family. She
also alleged that after the marriage, the husband took 20
sovereigns of gold ornaments and money as a trustee, assuring to
keep the same on behalf of the wife. According to the wife, the
husband utilized the gold ornaments and money for his purpose
and never returned the same.
5. The husband filed a counter affidavit, contending that
the family of the wife was so poor to provide gold ornaments or
money, and that her father had deserted her mother even before
her marriage. He further stated that her brother was only 18
years old at the time of her marriage, and that she was engaged
as a salesgirl, earning ₹1,500/- per month. The wife was living
in a rented building. He asserted that she was given only 3.5
sovereigns of gold ornaments.
6. We have heard Sri.Manoj T.N., learned counsel for the
appellant-husband; and Sri.Sunil Nair Palakkat, learned counsel
for the respondent-wife.
7. In order to prove the claim of entrustment of 25
sovereigns of gold ornaments, the wife relied on Exts.B1 to B4
photographs and her oral evidence. No other document was
2025:KER:9024
..4..
produced to prove purchase of 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments.
The husband does not have a case that the wife was not having
any gold at all and on the other hand, he claimed that she had
only 3.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments. During cross-examination,
the wife had described each item of gold ornaments worn by her.
She deposed that those gold ornaments were purchased on
different dates bit by bit. Though it was admitted by the
husband that the wife had 3.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments, on a
question put forth during cross-examination, he answered that
she was not provided with any gold ornament at the time of
marriage, which is against his admission in the written
statement.
8. When PW2, who is the sister of the mother of the
husband, was examined, she was shown the photographs produced by
the wife as Exts.B1 to B4 and she deposed that all those gold
ornaments were taken for rent. It was further deposed that the
ornaments seen in the photographs are not gold, but imitation
ornaments. However, there is no such contention in the written
statement filed by the husband. Coming to the evidence of
PW1/husband, he has admitted that she had worn 3.5 sovereigns of
gold ornaments. PW2, while examined, has also admitted that the
2025:KER:9024
..5..
wife wore 3-4 sovereigns of gold ornaments. When the photographs
were shown to PW2, she deposed that 5-6 bangles are seen in the
photographs. PW2 had admitted that there was one gold chain and
5-6 bangles that were worn by the wife. On appreciation of the
evidence of PW1 and PW2, it is found unreliable.
9. On a perusal of the impugned order passed by the Family
Court, it is seen that her father had deserted her mother even
before her marriage and her only brother was aged only 18 years
at the time of her marriage and she was employed as salesgirl
with a monthly salary of ₹1,500/-. Further, they were residing
in a rented building. The best evidence that could have been
adduced by the wife was the evidence of her mother, who did not
mount the box. Other than the deposition and photos, no other
evidence has been adduced to prove purchase of gold by the wife.
She had averred that five sovereigns of gold ornaments were
gifted to her by family members. However, other than the wife,
nobody else was examined to prove the same.
10. It is an admitted fact that the father had deserted her
mother and she was only a salesgirl earning a monthly income of
₹1,500/-. From the circumstances of the case, it is seen that
2025:KER:9024
..6..
the family of the wife was not that affluent to purchase 25
sovereigns of gold ornaments. Further, no satisfactory evidence
has been adduced by the wife to prove the claim that she was
given 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage.
The husband admits in the written statement that the wife wore
3.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments. PW2 also, on seeing the
photographs, has deposed that 5-6 bangles are seen worn by the
wife. The photograph also reveals chains and bangles. It appears
that the bangles as six in number would be around 1.5
sovereigns and the chain about 3.5 sovereigns.
11. Hence, considering the entire facts and on
appreciation of the evidence on record, it can be taken that the
wife had 12.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of
marriage. She has already admitted that five sovereigns of gold
ornaments were kept with her. Hence, we find that the wife is
entitled to recover only seven and a half sovereigns of gold
ornaments.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The decree and
judgment of the Family Court are set aside and a decree is
passed directing the appellant-husband to return to the wife
2025:KER:9024
..7..
seven and a half sovereigns of gold ornaments or its present
market value within one month from today, in default of which,
the wife will be entitled to realize the same from the husband's
assets, both movables and immovables. No costs.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
bka/-
