Kerala High Court
H. Shaji vs Farhana Faseen on 15 July, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
Mat.Appeal No.538 of 2018 and RP(FC) No.158 of 2019 2025:KER:51858
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 538 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.02.2016 IN OP NO.118 OF 2012 OF
FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
H. SHAJI, AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. HAMSA, H.S. MANZIL,
INDIRA NAGAR, IIND STREET,
VALIPARAMBU ROAD, KUNNATHURMEDU,
PALAKKAD TALUK & DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.K.ANAND
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
FARHANA FASEEN, AGED 27 YEARS
D/O. SIRAJUDHEEN, 45/593, USHUS AVENUE,
PALLIPURAM P.O.,
PALAKKAD TALUK & DISTRICT-679305.
BY ADV SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
SRI.GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.07.2025, ALONG WITH RPFC.158/2019, THE COURT ON 15.07.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal No.538 of 2018 and RP(FC) No.158 of 2019 2025:KER:51858
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1947
RPFC NO. 158 OF 2019
AGAINST THE PRDER DATED 24.02.2016 IN MC NO.121 OF 2012 OF
FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
H. SHAJI, AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.HAMSA, H.S.MANZIL,
INDIRA NAGAR,
IIND STREET,
VALIPARAMBU ROAD,
KUNNATHURMEDU,
PALAKKAD TALUK, DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL
SRI.T.M.MUHAMED HAFEES
SRI.S.SREENATH
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 FARHANA FASEEN
AGED 27 YEARS,
D/O.SIRAJUDHEEN,
45/593, USHUS AVENUE,
PALLIPURAM P.O.,
PALAKKD TALUK, DISTRICT- 679 305.
2 SHERIN TAHANIYA
AGED 8 1/2 YEARS (MINOR),
Mat.Appeal No.538 of 2018 and RP(FC) No.158 of 2019 2025:KER:51858
3
D/O.FARHANA FASEEN,
45/593, USHUS AVENUE,
PALLIPURAM P.O.,
PALAKKAD TALUK & DISTRICT,
REP. BY MOTHER, FARHANA ASEEN - 679 305.
BY ADV SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
SRI.GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.07.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.538/2018, THE COURT ON
15.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal No.538 of 2018 and RP(FC) No.158 of 2019 2025:KER:51858
4
SATHISH NINAN & P.KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ
--------------------------------------
Mat.Appeal No.538 of 2018 and RP(FC) No.158 of 2019
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar.J
The wife filed a petition against her husband for the
recovery of gold ornaments, money, and household articles
allegedly entrusted to him. She also sought maintenance for
herself and her daughter under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. These two cases were disposed of by the
Family Court along with a petition filed by the husband for
restitution of conjugal rights, through the impugned common
order. The Family Court partly allowed the claim for
recovery of gold ornaments and also awarded maintenance to
the wife and her daughter. The husband has challenged the
findings of the Family Court by filing the above appeals.
Though the claim for restitution was rejected, there is no
Mat.Appeal No.538 of 2018 and RP(FC) No.158 of 2019 2025:KER:51858
appeal against that finding.
2. According to the wife, she received 125
sovereigns of gold ornaments from her parents at the time of
her marriage, which were entrusted to the husband soon
thereafter. On the date of the marriage, her parents also
handed over an amount of ₹1,00,000/- to the husband. The
husband later misappropriated the gold ornaments and the
money. He also neglected to maintain her and their daughter.
Accordingly, the wife claimed that the husband should be
directed to pay maintenance at the rate of ₹10,000/- per
month to her and ₹5,000/- per month to their daughter. She
further stated that the husband is engaged in stationery and
real estate businesses and earns at least ₹85,000/- per
month.
3. The appellant, the husband, denied the above
allegations. According to him, the wife possessed only 40
sovereigns of gold ornaments. He also denied the alleged
entrustment of ₹1,00,000/-. Objecting to the claim for
maintenance, the appellant further contended that he is
Mat.Appeal No.538 of 2018 and RP(FC) No.158 of 2019 2025:KER:51858
employed as a helper in a shop owned by his father and that,
due to injuries sustained in a motor accident, he is unable
to attend work regularly.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and the respondent, the wife.
5. Though the wife sought recovery of 125
sovereigns of gold ornaments, the trial court allowed
recovery of only 50 sovereigns, based on the admission made
by the husband that she possessed 50 sovereigns of gold
ornaments at the time of marriage. It is the contention of
the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the
evidence adduced by the wife is wholly insufficient to
establish that the said gold ornaments were entrusted to the
husband or that he had misappropriated them.
6. In order to answer the question whether the
wife is entitled to recover 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments,
we have carefully examined the evidence adduced by both
Mat.Appeal No.538 of 2018 and RP(FC) No.158 of 2019 2025:KER:51858
sides. In her proof affidavit, the wife narrated specific
details of the gold ornaments worn by her at the time of
marriage and further reiterated the case advanced by her in
the original petition. According to the wife, on 12.03.2006,
the husband took possession of all her gold ornaments except
for one chain, a pair of earrings, and two bangles, together
weighing approximately two sovereigns. The trial court did
not accept the case of the wife that she had 125 sovereigns
of gold. However, it was found that the husband is liable to
return 50 sovereigns of gold. Though she was thoroughly
cross-examined by the learned counsel appearing for the
husband, her version regarding the entrustment of the gold
ornaments remained unshaken. In his written objection, the
husband initially contended that the wife possessed only 40
sovereigns of gold ornaments. However, during his testimony
at trial, he admitted that she had 50 sovereigns of gold
ornaments. In these circumstances, we find no reason to
disbelieve the respondent's version that some of the gold
ornaments were entrusted to the husband.
Mat.Appeal No.538 of 2018 and RP(FC) No.158 of 2019 2025:KER:51858
7. However, we find it difficult to accept her
version in its entirety, in view of certain inconsistencies
revealed during her cross-examination. She stated at first
that her husband used to give her four or five bangles even
after the entrustment of her gold ornaments to him. Later,
she stated that, for attending her cousin's marriage, she
received a long chain, another chain, together with eight
bangles. She further admitted that she used to receive gold
ornaments from him on certain other occasions as well.
"പ റത പപ ക പ ൾ ആദ മ മ 4-5 പപ വശ വളകൾ ഇട ൻ തന ര ന . ഒര
മക ലത ന ള ല ണ ഇപപക ര തനത. ഭർത വ നമറ ത തയ മട കമ'
കല ണത ന എനമറ ആഭരണങള ൽ ഒര വല യ ല / മനപ+സ, ഒര ഇടതര
ല, 8 വളകൾ തന ര ന . പ ന-ട തന ട ല. ആവശ വര പ ൾ എത ർകക
എനമറ ആഭരണങൾ തന ര ന ."
(Emphasis added)
8. The respondent's version indicates that some
of her gold ornaments were returned to her by the appellant.
Even according to her own pleadings, some of the gold
ornaments remained in her possession, although she states
that these consisted of one chain, a pair of earrings, and
Mat.Appeal No.538 of 2018 and RP(FC) No.158 of 2019 2025:KER:51858
two bangles having two sovereigns. There is no challenge
from the wife regarding the trial court's finding that only
50 sovereigns of gold ornaments are liable to be recovered.
Upon perusal of Exts. B1 and B2 photographs produced by the
wife, we find that they prima facie support the trial
court's finding regarding the quantity of gold ornaments
possessed by the wife, though she claimed that she had 125
sovereigns. In these circumstances, it is only reasonable to
conclude that out of the 50, at least 20 sovereigns of gold
ornaments might have been retained by the appellant in the
manner stated above, for her regular use. This aspect was
not considered by the trial court, and therefore,
interference with the impugned order is warranted, at least
to that extent.
9. We also noticed another irregularity in the
impugned order. The Family Court directed that the wife is
entitled to recover 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments or their
market value as on the date of the petition. However, it is
the settled law that the wife is entitled to recover the
Mat.Appeal No.538 of 2018 and RP(FC) No.158 of 2019 2025:KER:51858
market value of the gold ornaments as on the date of
recovery. Hence, the above direction in the decree also
requires modification.
10. The Family Court allowed the claim for
maintenance at the rate of ₹4,000/- per month in favour of
the wife and ₹3,000/- per month for the daughter. The Family
Court, having had the advantage of directly assessing the
physical condition of the appellant, concluded that he is an
able-bodied person capable of earning a sufficient amount to
maintain the wife and daughter. There is no material on
record to suggest that the wife is capable of maintaining
herself or the child. The amount fixed by the Family Court
is very reasonable. In these circumstances, there is no
reason to interfere with the order granting maintenance.
11. In the result, Mat. Appeal No.538/2018 is
partly allowed. The respondent is entitled to recover 30
sovereigns of gold ornaments, or in the alternative, their
market value at the time of recovery, from the appellant and
Mat.Appeal No.538 of 2018 and RP(FC) No.158 of 2019 2025:KER:51858
his assets. The impugned decree is modified accordingly.
R.P.(FC) No.158 of 2019 is dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.KRISHNA KUMAR, JUDGE
dlk/14/07/
