Kerala High Court
Joy vs Bindhu on 5 June, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:39342
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 787 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.04.2016 IN OP NO.449 OF 2014 OF
FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA
-----
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:
JOY,
AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O. CHULLIKKATTIL MATHEW, VALAKKAZHA DESOM,
KATTUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.B.GANGESH
SMT.ATHIRA A.MENON
SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT:
1 BINDHU
AGED 39 YEARS
D/O. ALOOKKARAN LONAYI, KADUPPASSERI VILLAGE & DESOM,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, PIN-680 683.
*2 AMMINI
AGED 78 YEARS
W/O. CHULLIKKATTIL MATHEW, VALAKKAZHA DESOM, KATTUR
VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, PIN-680 683.
2025:KER:39342
MAT.APPEAL NO. 787 OF 2016 -2-
*[THE SECOND RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY OF THE
APPEAL AS PER ORDER DATED 31/05/2017 IN IA 2618/2016]
BY ADV SRI.T.N.MANOJ
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
05.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:39342
SATHISH NINAN &
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat. Appeal No.787 of 2016
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 5th day of June, 2025
J U D G M E N T
Sathish Ninan, J.
The original petition filed by the wife against the
husband and his mother as respondents 1 and 2, for
return of gold ornaments or its value was decreed
against the husband. Hence he is in appeal.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized
on 20.11.2000 at the St. Thomas Church, Irinjalakuda.
According to the wife, at the time of marriage her
parents had provided her with 31 sovereigns of gold
ornaments. The husband and the wife fell apart. The wife
alleges that out of the gold ornaments, 11 sovereigns
were misappropriated by the husband and his mother. The
original petition is filed for recovery of the same or
its value.
2025:KER:39342
3. The husband did not deny that the wife had gold
ornaments with her at the time of marriage; but it was
contended that she had only a lesser quantity than
claimed in the original petition. It was also contended
that whatever gold ornaments the wife had, are with her,
and were never entrusted to the husband or the mother.
The allegation of misappropriation was also denied.
4. The Family Court on appreciation of the evidence
upheld the claim of the wife.
5. We have heard the learned counsel on either
side.
6. Ext.A3 series are the photographs taken at the
time of wedding. It was produced by the wife to show
that she was wearing sufficiently fair quantity of gold
ornaments at the time of marriage and that the claim of
the wife that she had 31 sovereigns is probable. The
husband as RW1, admitted in the cross-examination that
the wife had 31 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time
of marriage. Admittedly the father of the wife was a
2025:KER:39342
retired employee of the Christ College, Irinjalakkuda,
suggesting the source to purchase the ornaments. The
finding that the wife had 31 sovereigns of gold
ornaments warrants no interference.
7. At any rate, we are not presently much concerned
with the total quantity of gold ornaments that the wife
had; it is because the allegation is that, out of the
gold ornaments, 11 sovereigns were misappropriated, and
the claim is only for the same.
8. With regard to the claim that 11 sovereigns were
appropriated by the husband for his purposes, there is
only oath against oath. The trial court which had the
opportunity to watch the demeanor of the witnesses,
found the evidence of the wife as PW1, to be reliable
and acceptable. The learned counsel for the appellant
was unable to bring to our notice any material to
discredit PW1. When the only material available to
decide the lis is oath against oath, and the trial court
has appreciated the same and has arrived at a
2025:KER:39342
conclusion, unless the appreciation of the oral evidence
is demonstrated to be erroneous or perverse, the
appellate court is not to interfere with the same. When
a case turns solely on the credibility of witnesses, the
appellate court is in a disadvantageous position. [See
Narbada Prasad v. Chhaganlal (AIR 1969 SC 395), Radha Prasad Singh v. Gajadhar
Singh & Others (AIR 1960 SC 115), Madhusudan Das v. Narayanibai (Deceased) by
LRs. & Ors. (AIR 1983 SC 114)] . The appellant has failed in his
endeavour.
We do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal
fails and is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. To Judge
