Kerala High Court
Tharammal Divya vs O. Ragesh on 31 July, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:56699
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 133 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.10.2017 IN OP NO.1086 OF 2015
OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR
-----
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
O.RAGESH,
S/O RAVEENDRAN, AGED 37 YEARS, SWATHI NIVAS,VELLAPPARA,
ATTADAPPA PO, ELAYAVOOR AMSOM,ATTADAPPA DESOM, KANNUR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.S.ANISHAD
SMT.SANJANA RACHEL JOSE
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
THARAMMAL DIVYA,
D/O RAGHAVAN, AGED 33 YEARS,
THARAMMAL HOUSE,VALIYANNUR, VARAM PO,
VALIYANNUR AMSOM,VALIYANNUR DESOM, KANNUR-670 594.
BY ADV SMT.M.M.DEEPA
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
31.07.2025, ALONG WITH CO.93/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:56699
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1947
CO NO. 93 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.10.2017 IN OP NO.1086 OF 2015
OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR
-----
CROSS OBJECTOR/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
THARAMMAL DIVYA,
AGED 44 YEARS,
D/O. RAGHAVAN, RESIDING AT THARAMMAL HOUSE, VALIYANNUR,
VARAM P.O, VALIYANNUR AMSOM, VALIYANNUR DESOM,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670594.
BY ADV SMT.M.M.DEEPA
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
O. RAGESH,
AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O. RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING AT SWATHI NIVAS, VELLAPPARA,
ATTADAPPA P.O, ELAYAVOOR AMSOM, ATTADAPPA DESOM,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670006.
THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 31.07.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.133/2018, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:56699
SATHISH NINAN &
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat Appeal No.133 of 2018 &
C.O. No.93 of 2025
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2025
J U D G M E N T
Sathish Ninan, J.
The original petition filed by the wife against the
husband seeking return of gold ornaments, was decreed in
part. The husband is in appeal. The wife has filed a cross
objection claiming value of gold at the time of its
payment/realisation.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on
06.05.2001. According to the wife, at the time of marriage
she was provided with 21 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The
husband obtained the gold ornaments from her on various
occasions and pledged it. The ornaments were not returned.
The parties fell apart and are residing separately since the
year 2014. The original petition was filed seeking return of
the gold ornaments.
Mat Appeal No.133 of 2018 &
2025:KER:56699
3. The husband denied that the wife had 21 sovereigns
of gold ornaments. He also denied of having pledged any of
the ornaments of the wife. It was contended that the wife
herself had pledged a few of her ornaments and that the
balance ornaments are with her.
4. The Family Court granted a decree for recovery of
15½ sovereigns or its value, which the court fixed at
₹ 22,000/- per sovereign.
5. We have heard learned counsel on either side.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant-husband would
contend that there is no evidence to find that the wife had
21 sovereigns with her at the time of marriage. So also
there is no evidence to find that the husband had
misappropriated the same. The pledge of the gold ornaments
was by the wife herself and the husband cannot be made
responsible for the same. He further relied on various
judgments of this Court in Muneera v. Mariyumma 2024 KHC 7303,
Abubakker Labba and Another v. Shameena K. B. and Another 2018 (3) KHC 219,
Mohandas v. Sunitha Mohandas 2024 (7) KHC 273, Bindhu K.S. v. Rejimon T.B. 2024
KHC 1181 to contend that there must be specific plea and
Mat Appeal No.133 of 2018 &
2025:KER:56699
proof with regard to the entrustment of gold ornaments. He
also argued that the non-examination of the relatives of the
wife who allegedly gifted the ornaments to her is fatal.
7. Ext.A1 and Ext.A1(b) are the photograph taken in
connection with the marriage. Exts.X1 and X2 are documents
relating to the pledge of ornaments with the Chovva
Cooperative Rural Bank Ltd. On a comparison of the list of
ornaments, it is evident that they are substantially the
same. The above, coupled with the oral evidence of the
petitioner as PW1, leaves no room for doubt that at the time
of marriage she had the gold ornaments as claimed by her.
The non-examination of the witnesses who had gifted the
petitioner the ornaments is, on the evidence on record,
inconsequential.
8. Now coming to the plea of misappropriation of the
gold ornaments, Exts.A4 and A4(a) are the letters sent by
the husband to the wife while he was working abroad. The
relevant statements therein have been adverted to by the
Family Court in its judgment. For the sake of completeness
the same are extracted hereunder :-
Mat Appeal No.133 of 2018 &
2025:KER:56699
"എനനികക്ക് ഇവനിടടെ നനിനക്ക് പണനി ലലീവവാകനി നനിൽകവാൻ ഇഷക്ക്ടെമല.
എനനികക്ക് എതത്രയയയും ടപടട്ടെനക്ക് കവാശക്ക് ഉണവാകണയും. എനനിട്ടെക്ക് ഇപപവാഴയള
കടെടമവാടക വലീട്ടെനി നനിടന്റെ ടപവാനക്ക് ഒടക എടെയതക്ക് ഞവാൻ വനിറ്റത്രക്ക്
വവാങനിചച്ചു ത്രനക്ക് ഏട്ടെടന്റെ ഭവാരര്യടയകവാളച്ചുയും, അനയജടന്റെ ഭവാരര്യപയകവാളച്ചുയും
ടപവാനണനിഞക്ക് നടെതണയും. അത്രക്ക് എടന്റെ ഏറ്റവയയും വലനിയ ആ
തഗ്രഹമവാണക്ക്. ....... അത്രക്ക് പപവാടല ത്രവാടഴ ടചവാവ്വകയള ടചവാവ്വ ബവാങനിലയയും,
എളയവാവവൂരക്ക് ബവാങനിലയയും ഉള ടപവാനനിനക്ക് പലനിശ ടകവാണയ പപവായനി
അടെകണയും. അത്രക്ക് നനിടന്റെ പപരനിൽ ആകയവവാൻ ഞവാൻ രണക്ക്
ടവളകടെലവാസനിൽ ഒപക്ക് ടവചക്ക് അച്ഛടന്റെ കകവശയും ടകവാടെയതനിട്ടെച്ചുണക്ക്.
അത്രയ ടകവാണയ പപവാകയപമവാൾ അത്രനിടന പറ്റനി അറനിയവാവയന
ആടരടയങനിലയയും കവൂട്ടെനി പവണയും പപവാകയവവാൻ എനനിട്ടെക്ക് പലനിശ അടെചക്ക്
.................. .......എനനികക്ക് എനനി ഒരയ ലകര്യമയണക്ക്. നനിടന്റെ
പയത്രയകണയും
ഞവാനവായനി നശനിപനിച മയഴയവൻ സസ്വർണ്ണവയയും അധനികയും കവകവാടത്ര
എടെയതക്ക് ത്രരയയും. കടെങൾ ഒടക വലീട്ടെനി നവാട്ടെനിൽ വനക്ക് നനിടന്റെയയയും,
മകളച്ചുടടെയയയും കവൂടടെ സപനവാഷമവായനി ജലീവനികണയും. എനനിട്ടെക്ക് മരനിചവാലയയും
പവണനില."
The issuance of Exts.A4 and A4(a) the letters and their
genuineness are not in dispute. The letters unambiguously
reveal that the ornaments belonging to the wife were pledged
by the husband. The statements further reveal that the
husband had required the wife to change the name of the loan
account to the name of the wife. The documents produced from
the Bank shows that initially the gold loan was in the name
of the husband which was later transferred to the name of
the wife. This is in tune with the contents of Ext.A4
Mat Appeal No.133 of 2018 &
2025:KER:56699
letter.
9. The Family Court has noted that the wife had availed
gold loans from other institutions also. There is no case
for the husband that the wife was in requirement of any
money for her personal use during the subsistence of the
marital tie necessitating availing of any loan by her. No
such circumstances are pointed out or even suggested. Here
it is relevant to note that, as RW1, the case of the husband
is that he has not pledged any ornaments. He deposed thus :-
"പണയയും ടവച സസ്വർണ്ണവാഭരണങൾ ഹരജനികവാരനികക്ക് നനിങൾ ത്രനിരനിചക്ക്
എടെയതക്ക് ടകവാടെയതനിട്ടെനിലപലവാ (Q) Answer : ഞവാൻ ബവാങനിൽ പണയയും
ടവചനിട്ടെനില. അത്രയടകവാണക്ക് ഞവാൻ എടെയതക്ക് ടകവാടെയപകണ
ആവശര്യമനില."
It could only be concluded that the pledge of the gold
ornaments was by the husband or on his behalf for his
benefit. The Family Court has appreciated the evidence in
the right perspective and has held so.
10. Now coming to the quantity of the gold ornaments,
the Family Court has taken into consideration the quantity
pledged with the Bank as evidenced by Exts.X1 and X2. The
Mat Appeal No.133 of 2018 &
2025:KER:56699
Family Court found that the quantity of gold ornaments
pledged is 15½ sovereigns. The learned counsel for the
appellant argued that, the Family Court, by referring to
Exts.X1 and X2 Bank records though noticed that the bracelet
belonging to the wife was not pledged, its weight was also
reckoned while passing the decree. We find force in the
contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Having
found that the bracelet was not pledged, the same could not
have been included while fixing the total quantity of gold
liable to be returned by the husband.
11. Thus, the total quantity of gold ornaments to be
returned by the husband is 14½ sovereigns. It is only
probable that the remaining ornaments would have been with
the wife for her daily wear.
12. With regard to the value of the gold ornaments, the
Family Court has fixed the value at ₹ 22,000/- per sovereign
and has permitted recovery of the same in the alternative
for return of gold ornaments. This Court has held that it is
the value of the ornaments at the time of payment is liable
to be recovered. [See Syamin S. Nair & Ors v. Sreekanth R. (2022 (3)
Mat Appeal No.133 of 2018 &
2025:KER:56699
KHC 145]. The wife has filed a cross objection seeking the
said relief.
13. Thus, the decree and judgment of the family court
is liable to be interfered with to the extent of quantity
and value.
In the result, the appeal and cross objection are
allowed. The decree and judgment of the Family Court are
modified directing the husband to return 14½ sovereigns of
gold ornaments to the wife within one month from today, on
failure of which, the wife shall be entitled to realise its
value at the time of recovery, from the husband and his
assets. No costs.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. To Judge
