Kerala High Court
Jiju Lukose vs Sneha Jose on 10 July, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:50522
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. 727 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.02.2016 IN OP
NO.1699 OF 2012 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 JIJU LUKOSE
AGED 32, S/O. LUKOSE GEORGE, 1300 WORCESTER ROAD,
FRAMINGHAM, MA 01702, BOSTON, USA, HAVING NATIVE
ADDRESS AT PLATHOTTAM HOUSE,ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O.,
KOTTAYAM,REPRESENTED BY P.A.HOLDER GEORGE LUKOSE.
2 GEORGE LUKOSE, AGED 69, S/O. LATE GEORGE,
PLATHOTTAM HOUSE,ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS.SHRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR
SMT.M.L.REMYA
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
SNEHA JOSE, AGED 31, D/O. JOSE KURIAN, VEMPENY
HOUSE, VETTIMUKAL P.O., ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.E.M.MURUGAN
SHRI.P.RAKESH (VAIKOM)
SHRI.P.R.PRATEESH
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
10.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:50522
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat.Appeal No.727 of 2016
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
Sathish Ninan, J.
The decree in an original petition filed by the wife
against the husband and his father, seeking return of gold
and money, is under challenge by the respondents.
2. The marriage between the petitioner and the 1st
respondent was solemnised on 28.11.2011. According to the
petitioner, at the time of marriage she was provided with
457 grams of gold ornaments. An amount of Rs.13,75,000/- is
claimed to have been entrusted to the respondents on her
behalf, at the time of engagement. The parties fell apart
and the original petition has been filed for recovery of the
gold and money.
3. The respondents, though did not deny the
contention with regard to the gold ornaments, contended that
the wife was provided with only Rs.1,50,000/-, which was
2025:KER:50522
deposited in a savings bank account in the joint names of
the petitioner and the 1st respondent.
4. The trial court granted a decree for return of
gold ornaments and also for money as prayed.
5. We have heard Shri.G. Krishnakumar, the learned
counsel on behalf of the appellants-respondents and
Shri.E.M. Murugan, the learned counsel for the respondent-
petitioner.
6. Pending the appeal, this Court, on the application
of the appellants, as per order dated 16.12.2016, deputed an
Advocate Commissioner to inspect the locker in the name of
the 2nd appellant with the South Indian Bank Ltd.,
Athirampuzha, wherein the ornaments of the petitioner were
kept. The Commissioner, on inspection, filed a report dated
06.01.2017. An inventory of the ornaments was prepared.
After taking the inventory, the ornaments were kept back in
the locker, in the presence of the Bank Manager. There is no
dispute that such gold ornaments belong to the wife and
2025:KER:50522
that she is entitled for the same. Therefore, such
ornaments, as was found by the Advocate Commissioner to be
kept in the bank locker, is liable to be handed over to the
wife.
7. The main grievance of the appellants is with
regard to the decree for money. To substantiate the claim
for money, the wife relied on Exts.X1 and X2 bank account
statements and also the evidence of PW6, the Bank Manager of
the South Indian Bank Ltd., Athirampuzha Branch. Ext.X1
evidences the withdrawal of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from
the Ettumanoor Branch of State Bank of Travancore on
25.11.2011. Ext.X2 evidences the withdrawal of an amount of
Rs.11,00,000/- on 24.11.2011 from the account of the
petitioner's father. The marriage between the parties were
solemnised on 28.11.2011. PW6 has produced Exts.X4 and X4(a)
account details. It is revealed that a joint account in the
names of the husband and wife was opened with the branch on
30.11.2011, i.e., two days after the marriage. PW6 has
2025:KER:50522
deposed that, going by the accounts maintained at the Bank,
an amount of Rs.1,70,502/- is lying in deposit in the
savings account and Rs.9,50,000/- is lying as fixed deposit
in their joint names. The above probabilises the claim of
the wife with regard to the money.
8. The claim of the appellants (husband and his
father) is that the husband is employed in the United States
of America and that these deposits are with his funds.
However, they were unable to produce any bank records or
documents to evidence the source of such amounts. In the
absence thereof, and in the light of the evidence adduced by
the wife as noted above, we find that the Family Court was
justified in upholding the petitioners' claim for money. The
decree granted for recovery of money warrants no
interference.
9. Resultantly, we find that the appeal is devoid on
merits, and the same is dismissed.
10. The petitioner can move the execution court to
2025:KER:50522
depute an Advocate Commissioner to open the locker bearing
No.76 at Athirampuzha Branch of South Indian Bank Ltd., of
which inventory was prepared through an Advocate
Commissioner appointed by this Court, and have the contents
handed over to the petitioner on due receipt, towards
discharge of the decree for return of gold ornaments.
Pending the appeal, as per the order in I.A.No.2408
of 2016, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- had been paid to the
petitioner. The same has already been recorded by this
Court in its order dated 04.04.2017 in I.A.No.1223 of
2017. Needless to say that this shall be taken note of
by the execution court.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
yd
