Kerala High Court
Unnikrishnan vs Mini on 29 January, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:6802
Mat.App.1242/2016
..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 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 9TH MAGHA, 1946
MAT.APPEAL NO. 1242 OF 2016
OP NO.754 OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 46, S/O.KUNJIKUTTAN, POOKOTTIL
HOUSE, POST KOTTAPADI, POOKODE VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD
TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.J.JOHNSON
SRI.T.K.ASOKAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 MINI, AGED 36, D/O.MANI, THIRUVATHRAYIL HOUSE, PUNNA
AMSOM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK.
2 MINOR AKSHAY KRISHNA, AGED 13 YEARS.
3 MINOR SREELAKSHMI, AGED 9 YEARS, (MINOR REPRESENTED BY
MOTHER AND GUARDIAN 1ST PETITIONER MINI)
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.S.RAJESH
SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
21.01.2025, THE COURT ON 29.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:6802
Mat.App.1242/2016
..2..
JUDGMENT
Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.
The husband is the appellant. The wife and the children
are the respondents in this appeal. The Original Petition was
filed by the wife for return of gold ornaments or its
equivalent value, return of money, return of household
articles or its value and for past and future maintenance. The
Family Court allowed the petition as follows:
"(1) The respondent is directed to return A schedule gold
ornaments or its equivalent value at the rate of Rs.20,000/-
per sovereign of gold for 27 sovereigns.
(2) The respondent is directed to return 3 sovereign of gold
ornaments obtained from the petitioner after the marriage or
its value at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per sovereign.
(3) The respondent is directed to return Rs.2 lakhs to the 1st
petitioner.
(4) The respondent is directed to return 22¼ sovereigns of gold
ornaments belongs to the 2nd petitioner or its equivalent value
at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per sovereign.
(5) The respondent is directed to return B schedule household
articles or to pay Rs.1,05,000/- to the petitioner.
(6) The respondent is directed to pay past maintenance to the
2nd and 3rd petitioners at the rate of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand only) each per month for 14 months.
(7) If the above amounts are not paid within one month he shall
pay interest at the rate of 6% till realization from the date
of the order."
2025:KER:6802
..3..
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
to as 'husband' and 'wife'.
3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on
10.05.1998. Two children were born in the wedlock. At the time
of marriage, the husband was working in the Gulf Country. In
2002, the husband came from Gulf and started ill-treating the
wife.
4. The wife claimed that her parents gave her 30
sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage and 27
sovereigns were taken by the husband for his purposes. The
parents of the wife had paid ₹2,00,000/- as patrimony and that
amount was also taken by the husband. He promised to return
the gold ornaments and money as and when requested by the
wife. Household articles were also given to the husband. After
the birth of the first child, her parents gave 22¼ sovereigns
of gold ornaments. The second child was provided with 10
sovereigns of gold ornaments. The husband took all the gold
ornaments assuring to keep them in the locker, but did not
return the same. The wife and children sought maintenance from
2025:KER:6802
..4..
the husband.
5. The husband remained absent and was set ex-parte before
the Family Court. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced
in this case. The petition was decreed by the Family Court on
the basis of the evidence adduced by the wife.
6. We have heard Sri.N.J.Johnson, the learned counsel for
the husband and Sri.Shaju Purushothaman, learned counsel for
the wife.
7. The point that arises for determination is whether the
ex-parte decree passed by the Family Court warrants any
interference?
8. In the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the appellant left India on 17.08.2013 and came
back only on 22.08.2016 and all proceedings were initiated
after he left India. It was further submitted that no notice
was served on the appellant regarding the proceedings before
the Family Court. Hence, he was not able to contest the case
on merits. On merits, the husband's case is that on the date
of marriage, the wife had only 3 sovereigns of gold ornaments
and the demand made by the wife is an exaggerated claim. The
2025:KER:6802
..5..
learned counsel for the husband further submitted that he sent
the wife for higher studies and the wife is working as Post
Woman in the Postal Department. He further submitted that
M.C.No.3 of 2013 was filed by the minor children for
maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The Family Court,
Thrissur, had allowed the petition directing the husband to
pay maintenance @ ₹3,000/- each per month to the two minor
children. The learned counsel further submitted that the
Family Court had allowed return of 22¼ sovereigns of gold
ornaments or its value and return of ₹2,00,000/- and return of
household articles worth ₹1,05,000/- without any document or
evidence to prove the same.
9. The proceedings sheet of the Family Court does reveal
service of notice on the appellant husband.
10. We have been handed over a copy of the order passed
in M.C. No.3 of 2013, wherein the Family Court, Thrissur, has
directed to pay maintenance @ ₹3,000/- each to the two minor
children. No appeal has been filed against the said order and
it has become final. In the original petition, the claim for
maintenance was claimed at the rate of ₹5,000/- per month and
2025:KER:6802
..6..
the Family Court has granted past maintenance at that rate.
Considering the fact that in the MC proceedings, the Family
Court has granted maintenance to the minor children @ ₹3,000/-
each per month, we find that the respondents 2 and 3, are
entitled to get ₹3,000/- each, per month, as past maintenance
for a period of 14 months.
11. Regarding the other prayers in the original petition,
we are of the opinion that an opportunity could be granted to
the appellant to contest the claim. This could be made subject
to the condition that the entire arrears of maintenance is
paid by the appellant within one month from today.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as hereunder:
(i) The decree regarding past maintenance to the
respondents 2 and 3, is modified directing the
appellant-husband to pay an amount of ₹3,000/- each per month
till the date of the original petition, within one month from
today.
(ii) If direction (i) above is complied by the appellant,
the impugned judgment of the Family Court, Thrissur, in O.P.
No.754 of 2013 as regards the decree for return of gold
2025:KER:6802
..7..
ornaments, money and household articles and future maintenance
will stand set aside, and the court shall try and dispose of
the Original Petition regarding the said claims, afresh.
(iii) If the appellant fails to comply with direction
(i) above, the appeal will stand dismissed.
(iv) The parties are directed to appear before the Family
Court, Thrissur, on 14.02.2025.
(v) The Family Court shall make every endeavour to
dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
bka/-
