Kerala High Court
Susmitha vs Biju on 10 July, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:50565
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 525 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.12.2015 IN OP(Others) NO.1826
OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL
-----
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SUSMITHA
D/O. SURENDRAN, AGED 31 YEARS,S.S.LAND, MANAMBOOR P.O.,
MANAMBOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
2 ABHIMANUE
S/O. BIJU, AGED 10 YEARS, MINOR,REPRESENTED BY HIS
MOTHER SUSMITHA,S.S.LAND, MANAMBOOR P.O.,
MANAMBOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
BIJU,
S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 43 YEARS,MANI MANDIRAM,
FROM OTTIYIL VEEDU,PUTHUSSERIMUKKU,
KUDAVOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DITRICT.
BY ADV SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN (SR.)
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
10.07.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.270/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:50565
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 270 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.12.2015 IN OP (OTHERS) NO.1826
OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL
-----
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
BIJU,
AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, HINDU, EZHAVA, FOREIGN SERVICE,
RESIDING AT MANI MANDIRAM FROM OTTIYIL VEEDU,
PUTHUSSERIMUKKU, KUDAVOOR, NOW EMPLOYED AT BIJU P.V.,
C/O.MANGANO, VIA. VERSHAL PALERMO 90144, REPRESENTED BY
HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER THRILOCHANAN, AGED 53
YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAHASAN, KANNATHUKONAM VEEDU,
PUTHUSSERIMUKKU, KARAVARAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN (SR.)
SRI.K.M.ABDUL MAJEED
SHRI.PHILIP JOSEPH(PUTHENCHIRA)
SMT.P.J.RAZIA BEEVI
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SUSMITHA
AGED 28 YEARS
D/O.SURENDRAN, HINDU, EZHAVA, HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT
S.S. LAND, MANAMBOOR P.O., MANAMBOOR VILLAGE & DESOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 611.
2025:KER:50565
MAT.APPEAL NO. 270 OF 2016 -2-
2 ABHIMANUE
AGED 7 YEARS
S/O.BIJU, RESIDING AT S.S.LAND, MANAMBOOR P.O.,
MANAMBOOR VILLAGE & DESOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 611, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT
BY ADV SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
10.07.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.525/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:50565
SATHISH NINAN &
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat Appeal Nos.270 & 525 of 2016
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2025
J U D G M E N T
Sathish Ninan, J.
The petitioners and the respondent respectively, in
the Original Petition before the Family Court, are in
appeal challenging that part of the decree and judgment
which is against them. The original petition was filed
by the wife and the minor son against the husband
claiming return of gold ornaments, money and
maintenance. The claim was decreed in part.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized
on 02.01.2005. According to the wife at the time of
marriage she was provided with 101 sovereigns of gold
ornaments and ₹ 5 lakhs as pocket money. She entrusted
the same with her husband. The second petitioner was
born in the wedlock. At the time of "noolukettu"
ceremony of the 2nd petitioner, 15 sovereigns of gold
Mat Appeal Nos.270 & 525 of 2016
2025:KER:50565
ornaments were presented by her friends and relatives.
The same was also entrusted with the husband. The
husband went to Italy on 07.05.2008. The petitioner's
father had provided him an amount of ₹ 5 lakhs towards
expenses. The parties fell apart and the original
petition is filed seeking recovery of the gold ornaments
and money. The petitioners also claim maintenance at the
rate of ₹ 5,000/- each per month.
3. The respondent contended that the wife had only
50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and that the same were
always with the wife. The alleged gift of 15 sovereigns
of gold ornaments to the second petitioner was also
denied. The claim that an amount of 5 lakhs was provided
towards expenses for going to Italy was also denied. It
was contended that the wife left the company of the
husband on her own volition and that she is living
separately without any reason. Accordingly the claim for
maintenance was also challenged.
Mat Appeal Nos.270 & 525 of 2016
2025:KER:50565
4. The Family Court granted a decree for recovery
of an amount of ₹ 10 lakhs, being the money entrusted at
the time of marriage and also the amount given for
travelling to Italy. Maintenance was ordered at the rate
of ₹ 5,000/- each per month to the petitioners from the
date of petition. The other claims including the claim
for gold ornaments were negatived.
5. We have heard Sri.J.Jayakumar, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Sri.T.P.M.Ibrahim Khan, the
learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that he is confining the appeal to the claim for 101
sovereigns of gold ornaments. The learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondent submitted that in execution
of the decree, the respondent's property has been sold.
He did not venture to argue further on his appeal.
7. Coming to the claim for 101 sovereigns of gold
ornaments, the Family Court had found that the wife was
possessed of that much quantity of ornaments at the time
Mat Appeal Nos.270 & 525 of 2016
2025:KER:50565
of marriage. The court considered her deposition as PW1,
along with Ext.A2 series photographs. Having considered
the said materials we find that the Family Court was
justified in having held so. Now the question is whether
the ornaments were entrusted with the respondent and
whether a decree is liable to be passed against the
respondent for the same.
8. It is the case of the wife that after the
marriage all her gold ornaments except two bangles, a
pair of studs and 'thali' chain, were entrusted with the
respondent. The wife while examined as PW1, in her
cross-examination, deposed that, immediately after the
marriage the respondent had availed a locker facility.
However, while the respondent was examined as RW1, it is
not even suggested to him that he had availed a locker
facility after the marriage. The husband in his cross-
examination has deposed that after the marriage the
ornaments of the wife were kept at his house, that there
are two shelves in his room. He deposed that the wife
Mat Appeal Nos.270 & 525 of 2016
2025:KER:50565
was entrusted with the key. In his cross-examination it
is suggested to him that the gold and money were kept by
him in the shelf. Admittedly the husband went to Italy
after the marriage. Therefore, the key of the shelf
wherein the ornaments were kept could only be with the
wife. This probabilises the conclusion of the Family
Court that the gold ornaments were always with the
custody of the wife. It is in the said background that
the Family Court declined the relief sought for recovery
of gold ornaments. We find that the conclusions arrived
at by the Family Court is a probable one based on the
evidence and circumstances and the same warrants no
interference.
9. With regard to the decree granted for ₹ 10 lakhs
and interest, an amount of ₹ 5 lakhs is claimed to have
been entrusted at the time of marriage. To substantiate
the same the wife relied on Ext.A3 bank passbook of the
wife's father. He is working abroad. He was examined as
PW3. Ext.A3 coupled with the evidence of PWs.1 and 3
Mat Appeal Nos.270 & 525 of 2016
2025:KER:50565
establishes the payment of ₹ 5 lakhs as claimed by the
petitioner. With regard to the payment of a further
amount of ₹ 5 lakhs, the same is evidenced by Exts.A4
and A5 money transfer receipts by PW3 the father. Out of
the amount of ₹ 5 lakhs, ₹ 2.5 lakhs is claimed to have
been given before the husband proceeded to Italy and the
remaining while he was at Italy. As found by the Family
Court the claim is substantiated by the oral evidence of
PWs.1 and 3 coupled with Exts.A4 and A5. There is no
material to interfere with the said finding.
On the above discussions, we do not find any merit
in these appeals.
Resultantly, the appeals fail and are dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy// P.S. To Judge
