Kerala High Court

Lumu Lal vs Susmitha V.M on 11 June, 2025

Author: Sathish Ninan

Bench: Sathish Ninan

                                              2025:KER:40766


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

                             &

         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR

 WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1947

                 MAT.APPEAL NO. 303 OF 2019

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.03.2019 IN OP NO.1385 OF 2016

                  OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:

    1    LUMU LAL,
         AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNA LAL, MULLASSERY HOUSE,
         P.O.MANNAM, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK,
         ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF
         ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.KRISHNAN T.N., AGED 60 YEARS,
         S/O.NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT THOOSATH HOUSE, MANNAM
         P.O., KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK,
         ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

    2    LISHA M.K.,
         AGED 39 YEARS
         W/O.BALAMURALI, PALAPPURATH HOUSE, KONGORPILLY,
         KOONAMMAVU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, (D/O.KRISHNA
         LAL, MULLASSERY HOUSE, MANNAM P.O.

         BY ADVS.
         SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA
         SMT.DIJI.K.DASAN
         SMT.M.S.SOUJATH
         SMT.REMYA POULOSE
                                            2025:KER:40766
Mat.Appeal No.303 of 2019
                            -: 2 :-




RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

    1      SUSMITHA V.M.
           AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.MADHAVA BABU, VAZHAPULLY
           HOUSE, KAZHIMBRAM P.O., EDAMUTTAM, VALAPPAD
           VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR.

    2      MINOR JISHNU,
           AGED 6 YEARS, VAZHAPPULLY HOUSE, KAZHIMBRAM
           P.O., EDAMUTTAM, VALAPPAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD
           TALUK, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND
           MOTHER SUSMITHA V.M.

           BY ADV SRI.PREMCHAND M.

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
11.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                       2025:KER:40766




          SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
            = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                 Mat.Appeal No.303 of 2019
            = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
           Dated this the 11th day of June, 2025

                                JUDGMENT

Sathish Ninan, J.

The wife and child filed the original petition

before the Family Court, against the husband and in-laws

as respondents, seeking inter alia return of gold

ornaments, money and maintenance. The original petition

was decreed in part. The respondents in the original

petition are in appeal.

2. The marriage between the parties was

solemnised on 30.08.2007. On 07.06.2012, the 2nd

petitioner was born in the wedlock. Admittedly, the

parties are living separately since the year 2016.

2025:KER:40766

3. It is the case of the wife that, at the time

of marriage, she was provided with 127 sovereigns of

gold ornaments, a Honda City car worth Rs.10,00,000/-

and an almirah worth Rs.30,000/-. The parties fell

apart. The original petition was filed seeking return of

the gold ornaments, almirah, value of the car and also

monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- for the

1st petitioner and Rs.15,000/- for the 2 nd petitioner.

4. The respondents denied all the claims but for

the claim that a steel almirah was gifted in connection

with the marriage. It was contended that the wife's

father had financial liabilities in connection with his

business, and its settlement, what ever gifts were

provided to her were utilised by him.

5. The Family Court granted a decree for 113½

sovereigns of gold ornaments, almirah, value of the car, 2025:KER:40766

and maintenance. There is no appeal by the wife.

6. We have heard Shri.T.M. Raman Kartha, the

learned counsel for the appellants, and Shri.M.

Premchand, the learned counsel for the respondents.

7. With regard to the quantity of the gold

ornaments that the wife had at the time of marriage, the

best evidence available on record is Ext.X11 marriage

certificate. Therein it is recorded that, the wife had

127 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Though the husband

would attempt to contend that the entry in Ext.X11 is

not correct, there is no reason to suspect the

genuineness of the document. The Secretary of the SNDP

Branch, who maintains the register, was examined as PW6.

Nothing could be brought out to discredit the document

or his evidence. Ext.X11 is further corroborated by

Exts.A1 to A4 series of photographs taken at the time of 2025:KER:40766

marriage. Coupled with the same, is the oral evidence of

Pws.3 and 4(the 1st petitioner and her father). That the

wife was possessed of 127 sovereigns of gold ornaments

at the time of marriage is thus well substantiated by

evidence.

8. The wife alleges that the gold ornaments were

pledged or sold by the respondents. PWs 1 and 2 are the

Bank Managers, who were examined to prove the pledging

of the ornaments. They produced Exts.X1 to X10 series

evidencing the pledge. Though admitted, the respondents

were to contend that the pledge of the gold ornaments

was made by PW4, namely, the wife's father, in

connection with his business purposes, as noticed by the

Family Court, the gold ornaments were pledged at various

banks at Kongorappilly and Mannanam. If the father

needed to pledge the gold ornaments of his daughter, he 2025:KER:40766

would have done it secretly by obtaining the ornaments

from his daughter and would have pledged the same in a

bank near the place of his residence. Further, the

documents produced by the Bank evidence that, among the

documents submitted is also a basic tax receipt of the

property in the name of the husband to avail a loan as

agricultural loan. It is in evidence that the ornaments

were pledged in the name of respondents 1 and 4.

9. Challenging the claim for gold, the learned

counsel for the husband would argue that the case of

entrustment set up by the wife is disproved by the

evidence of the petitioners themselves. It is argued

that, while according to the wife she had gone to the

matrimonial home on the day of marriage, her father as

PW4 deposed that, after the marriage the couple resided

at his residence for two days and went to the 2025:KER:40766

matrimonial home on the third day. The learned counsel

for the appellants would further argue that, when the

wife was cross-examined, though she was questioned as to

whether any photograph is available to show the quantity

of gold ornaments she was wearing when she reached the

matrimonial home, she had replied that, at that time,

photographers from her side were not there. She

willfully did not disclose that after the marriage they

stayed at the matrimonial home. This is to suppress from

the Court that the ornaments worn by her at the time of

marriage, were not taken to her matrimonial home, it is

argued.

10. On a perusal of the pleadings and evidence, we

are unable to make out any such inconsistency or any

attempt to suppress any facts as claimed by the learned

counsel. In the original petition, at paragraph 4, it is 2025:KER:40766

pleaded thus;

"വവിവവാഹശശേഷഷ ടവി ആഭരണങ്ങളളഷ ഒനവാഷ ഹർജവികവാരവി

എതവിർകകവികളളുടട വവീടവിശലേകക ടകവാണണ്ടുശപവായവിടളുള്ളതവാണക."

She does not state that, on the day of marriage she had

straight away gone to the matrimonial home. So also,

with regard to the photographs what she deposed was:

"അവവിശടകക ഞങ്ങളളുടട videographer, photographer

എനവിവടരവാനണ്ടുഷ ശപവായവിടവില. അവരണ്ടുടട ആൽബതവിലേണ്ടുഷ

വവിവവാഹ CD യവിലേണ്ടുഷ ആഭരണങ്ങൾ ധരവിചക വവീടവിൽ

കയറണ്ടുനതണ്ടുണ.ക "

Evidently, all that she deposed was that, when they went

to the matrimonial home, videographers and photographers

from her side were not there. It is relevant to note

that, she had deposed that such details are available in

the album and CD of the husband. It could have been

produced by the husband to disprove the claim. However, 2025:KER:40766

it is not produced.

11. The fact that after the marriage, the wife had

carried the gold ornaments to the matrimonial home is

evident from the very contention at paragraph 14 of the

written statement filed by the respondents. It reads

thus;

"After the marriage, when the respondent reached back in his work place, the petitioner's father called and asked the gold ornaments back saying that he was having some serious issues with the finance company conducted by him in the name and style "Meevel Financiers" at Edamuttam. He insisted the respondent not to disclose his situations to his parents and to tell them that the father-in-law is taking the ornaments to keep them in safe custody. The respondent felt strange about the fact that through the petitioner's family was not financially sound, they were showing off at the time of the marriage with the lent ornaments and on borrowed amounts. But the respondent did not say any objections and the petitioner's father collected the gold ornaments from the petitioner."

The above is sufficient to find that the gold ornaments

belonging to the wife were brought to the matrimonial

home. Though in the proof affidavit of PW1 it was 2025:KER:40766

specifically sworn to that the gold ornaments were

entrusted to the respondents, it is not challenged in

the cross-examination. On the evidence as above, we do

not find any reason to interfere with the decree passed

by the Family Court with regard to the gold ornaments.

12. Now, coming to the claim for the value of the

car, the fact that, at the time of marriage the wife was

provided with a car is entered in Ext.X11 marriage

document. The husband as RW1 denied that a car was

provided at the time of marriage. However, Ext.A3 series

photographs taken in connection with the marriage

corroborates the case of the petitioners. The

photographs shows a decorated white Honda City car

parked in front of the marriage hall and both the wife

and the husband standing on its either side. It is the 2025:KER:40766

case of the petitioners that the car was purchased by

the father on availing a loan from the Bank and on

closure of the liability, the father had given a blank

signed sale letter to his daughter (1 st petitioner) to

enable transfer of registration. However, it is realised

that the car was transferred to the husband of the 4 th

respondent. Ext.A11 series of registration particulars

relating to the car support the above claim. The claim

with regard to the car was rightly upheld by the Family

Court.

13. The learned counsel for the appellants (husband)

would argue that the original petition itself is bad for

non-joinder of the husband of the 4th respondent, who is

the transferee of the car. It is to be noticed that

there is no relief claimed in the original petition for

recovery of the car. The prayer is only for the value of 2025:KER:40766

the car misappropriated by the respondents. Hence, the

plea of non-joinder is only to be repelled.

14. With regard to the claim for almirah, there is

no challenge.

15. Now, coming to the claim for maintenance, the

educational qualifications and institutions in which the

husband had worked and is employed, have been stated in

paragraph 4 of his proof affidavit. The same reads thus;

"പപവീഡവിപഗവിയണ്ടുഷ, ഡവിശപവാമ ഇൻ കമമളടർ ആപവിശകഷൻസണ്ടുഷ പപൂർതവിയവാ കവിശശേഷഷ ഞവാൻ കണ്ടുവവറക ഗൾഫക എന കമനവിയവിൽ എകകസവികമളടവീവക ടസപകടറവിയവായണ്ടുഷ 1997-ൽ ശജവാലേവിയവിൽ പപശവശേവിചളു. 1999-ൽ മണ്ടുഷകറഫക ശപടഡവിഷഗക & ശകവാൺപടവാകകറക കമനവി എന സവാപനതവിശലേകക കകവാൻഡവിറവി സർവവവർ ആയവി ശജവാലേവി മവാറഷ ലേഭവികണ്ടുകയണ്ടുണവായവി. ഈ കമനവിയവിൽ നവിനണ്ടുഷ സകശപവാൺസർ ടചെയകതപപകവാരഷ അശമരവികയവിൽ ഞവാൻ സവിവവിൽ എഞവീനവിയ റവിഷഗക പഠവികണ്ടുനതവിനവായവി 2000-ൽ രജവിസ്റ്റർ ടചെയളുകയണ്ടുഷ അശമരവികൻ യപൂണവി ശവഴകസവിറവി ഓഫക കണ്ടുവവറവിൽ തണ്ടുടർപഠനഷ നടതണ്ടുകയണ്ടുഷ 2005-ൽ വവിജയകര മവായവി എഞവീനവിയറവിഷഗക പഠനഷ 2025:KER:40766

പപൂർതവിയവാകവി ബവിരണ്ടുദഷ ശനടണ്ടുകയണ്ടുമണ്ടുണവായവി. 5/2/2012-ൽ ഞവാൻ ശനവാർതക ടഡശകവാട ശസ്റ്ററക (യണ്ടു.എസക.എ.) സവിവവിൽ എഞവീനവീയർ പഗവാജണ്ടുശവഷൻ ശനടവി എൻശറവാൾ ടചെയളുകയണ്ടുമണ്ടുണവായവി. ഈ ശകവാഴകസക പഠവിചളുടകവാണവിരവികണ്ടുശമവാൾ തടന ഇഷഗ്ലണക Heriot watt യപൂണവിശവ ഴകസവിറവിയണ്ടുടട ദണ്ടുബവായക Campouril Construction Project Management എന വവിഷയതവിൽ MSc .

പഠനഷ വവിജയകരമവായവി പപൂർതവിയവാകണ്ടുകയണ്ടുഷ ടചെയകതണ്ടു.

നവിലേവവിൽ കൺസകപടകൻ എഞവീനവീയർ രഷഗതക പപവർതവികണ്ടുന തവാടഴ പറയണ്ടുന സവാപനങ്ങളവിടലേ അഷഗമവാണക ഞവാൻ.

1. American University of Civil Engineering

2. American Society of Engineering Education

3. Institute Coast Engineering Association U.S.A

4. The Association for advancement of Coast Engineering U.S.A

5. Affiliate Member of Royal Institute of Charted Surveyor of U.K

6. Institution of Civil Engineering Surveyor U.K

മ ൽ സ പനങള ല അ ഗത ലത ഴ ൽപര യ എൻ്ല വ ദഗ തന ക നള അ ഗ$ക ര ണ ന ൽ ഞൻ ദബ യല ALTA project Management Consultancy എന സവാപനതവിൽ സവിവവിൽ എഞവിനവീയർ /സവീനവിയർ ടകവാശമഴകസമൽ മവാശനജർ ആയവി ശജവാലേവിടചെയകതക വരണ്ടുനണ്ടു. ശമൽ നമർ ശകസവിൽ ഒനവാഷ ഹർജവികവാരവി ഈ 2025:KER:40766

ശകവാടതവി മണ്ടുമവാ ടകയണ്ടുഷ പകവിമവിനൽ ശകവാടതവിയവിലേണ്ടുഷ നടനക വരണ്ടുന ശകസണ്ടുകളവിൽ ഹവാജരവാകണ്ടുന തവിനണ്ടുഷ മറളുമവായവി ചെണ്ടുരണ്ടുങ്ങവിയ ഇടശവളകളവിൽ അവധവി എടണ്ടുകണ്ടുനതണ്ടുടകവാണണ്ടുഷ ശജവാലേവിയവിൽ പപൂർണ്ണമവായവി മനസവിരണ്ടുതണ്ടുവവാൻ സവാധവികവാതതണ്ടു ടകവാണണ്ടുഷ ഇശപവാൾ എനവികക ഒരണ്ടു external consultant ടന്റെ ശേമളഷ മവാപതമവാണക ലേഭവിചക വരണ്ടുനതക. എടന്റെ വവിദമവാഭമവാസതവിനണ്ടുഷ മറളുമവായവി എനവികക ലേഭവിച വവിശദശേ വവിസകൾ, ഞവാൻ നടതവിയ അശമരവികൻ, ഇഷഗ്ലണക യവാപതകൾ എനവിവ യണ്ടുടട വവിശേദവീകരണങ്ങൾ എൻ്കടറ പവാസകശപവാർടളുകളവിൽ ശരഖടപടണ്ടുതവിയവിടളുള്ളതണ്ടുഷ ആയതവിടന്റെ പകർപളുകൾ (Passport No:Z1481774 dated 3/7/2003, Passport No:L1387033) ഇശതവാടടവാപഷ ഹവാജരവാകവിയവിടളുള്ളതക Exhibit B1, B2 എനവീ പകമ തവിൽ അകമവിടക ടതളവിവവിൽ സകവീകരവികവാൻ അശപകയണ്ടുള്ളതവാകണ്ടുനണ്ടു."

The Family Court noticed that the husband is still

working abroad. Though the 1st petitioner is a B.Tech

graduate, it is claimed that she is unemployed. It could

not be pointed out that she is employed anywhere. The

Family Court has fixed the maintenance taking note of

the entire relevant facts. We do not find any reason to 2025:KER:40766

interfere with the same.

16. The Family Court, which had the opportunity to

watch the demeanor of the witnesses, has found the

evidence of PWs 3 and 4 to be reliable. We also analysed

the evidence and concur with the conclusions arrived at

by the Family Court. We do not find any reason to