Kerala High Court
Baiju Varghese vs Suni Thomas on 13 June, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
Mat.A No.75 of 2020 1 2025:KER:42512
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.10.2019 IN OP NO.2047 OF
2015 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
BAIJU VARGHESE, AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. LATE VARGHESE, VILANGATTIL HOUSE,
CHALIKKAVATTOM, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE,
VENNALA P O, KOCHI-28.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SHRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
SMT.SNEHA SUKUMARAN MULLAKKAL
SRI.SHELLY PAUL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SUNI THOMAS
AGED 40 YEARS, D/O. THOMAS, ICE LAND FROZEN FOODS,
A UNIT OF SALKARA DECORATIONS AND CATERING
SERVICES, BUILDING NO.112/10, MULTIPLEX BAZAR,
THODUPUZHA ROAD PALA,
NEAR PALA K.S.R.T.C. BUS STAND, PALA-686574.
2 THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK
BANERJI ROAD BRANCH, KOCHI, PIN-682018, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR
SRI.SIJO GEORGE
SHRI.P.BABU KUMAR
SMT.SWETHA K.S.
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.5.2025, THE COURT ON 13.6.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & M.B.SNEHALATHA, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
Mat.Appeal No.75 of 2020
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th June, 2025
JUDGMENT
M.B.Snehalatha, J
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree in
O.P.No.2047/2015 of Family Court, Ernakulam.
2. Appellant is the former husband of the 1 st
respondent. He filed the Original Petition before the Family Court
contending that on 3.8.2002 during the subsistence of his marriage
with the 1st respondent, he deposited an amount of ₹45,000/- with
the 2nd respondent Bank in a joint fixed deposit with the 1 st
respondent, initially for a period of three years and subsequently it
was renewed periodically, which was matured on 26.8.2015.
Meanwhile, there arose marital discord between the appellant and
1st respondent. On 18.08.2015 when he approached the 2 nd
respondent Bank to release the fixed deposit amount with its
interest, the bank refused to return the amount on the ground that
1st respondent/wife has issued a letter to the Bank not to release
the fixed deposit without her consent. Though the appellant
preferred complaint before the Banking Ombudsman, the Banking
Mat.A No.75 of 2020 3 2025:KER:42512
Ombudsman vide order dated 07.09.2015 expressed his inability to
intervene in the matter. The 1st respondent does not have any right
over the fixed deposit made by the appellant. Hence a decree for
declaration was sought by the appellant to the effect that he is the
sole owner of the said fixed deposit amount including the interest
thereon and to direct the 2nd respondent Bank to release the
amount to him. He also sought for an alternate relief to the effect
that in the event the Court finds that the relief of declaration of
sole ownership of the fixed deposit cannot be granted, it is to be
declared that he is entitled to 1/2 of the fixed deposit amount
deposited with the 2nd respondent Bank.
3. The 1st respondent resisted the Original Petition
contending that the disputed fixed deposit amount actually belongs
to her. Petitioner is not entitled to claim the amount.
4. The 2nd respondent filed counter stating that
appellant along with his wife deposited the amount of Rs.45,000/-
on 17.05.2002 for a period of three years. As per the terms, the
deposit was payable to 'either or survivor'. The said fixed deposit
was renewed periodically and it matured on 26.10.2018. On
10.08.2015 appellant had made a request to close the fixed deposit
on maturity. On receipt of the said request, 2 nd respondent issued
Mat.A No.75 of 2020 4 2025:KER:42512
notice to the both the parties intimating them to contact the Bank
as the fixed deposit matured on 26.08.2015. On 24.08.2015 1 st
respondent issued a letter to the 2nd respondent to renew the said
deposit again and not to allow the withdrawal of the deposit
without her consent. In view the dispute raised by the 1 st
respondent who is the joint holder of the deposit, 2 nd respondent
informed the appellant that the deposit can only be released on the
basis of a joint application by the depositors and the amount will be
released to them jointly only. 2 nd respondent rejected the request
of the appellant to release the fixed deposit exclusively to him as it
is against the agreed terms of the facility and the fixed deposit is in
the joint names of the appellant and the 1 st respondent. 2nd
respondent is bound by the terms of the fixed deposit facility and
both the depositors are entitled to receive the due amount on their
joint application.
5. The evidence consists of the oral testimonies of
PWs 1 and 2 and RW1 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A7.
6. After evaluating the evidence the learned Family
Court allowed the Original Petition by granting the alternative relief
sought by the appellant and declared that the appellant has one
half right over the fixed deposit and the interest accrued therein.
Mat.A No.75 of 2020 5 2025:KER:42512
2nd respondent bank was directed to apportion their respective
share and to make payments on application by the parties and
after complying the formalities of the bank.
7. Appellant challenges the said judgment and
decree on the ground that the learned Family Court has not
analysed the evidence in its correct perspective; that the Family
Court went wrong in holding that 1st respondent has half right over
the amount covered in the said fixed deposit. It is contended by
the appellant that he is entitled to get a declaration that the entire
amount covered by the fixed deposit exclusively belongs to the
appellant.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1 st
respondent supported the findings of the Family Court and
submitted that there are absolutely no reasons at all to interfere
with the impugned judgment and decree, since the disputed fixed
deposit stands in the joint name of appellant and 1st respondent.
9. The point for consideration is whether the
impugned judgment and decree of the Family Court needs any
interference by this Court.
10. Admittedly, appellant is the former husband of
the 1st respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 18.4.2002.
Mat.A No.75 of 2020 6 2025:KER:42512
11. The dispute is with respect to the amount covered
by Ext.A5 fixed deposit receipt.
12. Appellant claims that he is the exclusive owner of
the said amount deposited with the 2nd respondent bank, whereas
1st respondent claims that it is her money. It is an admitted fact
that the fixed deposit of Rs.45,000/- which was made in the year
2002, initially for a period of three years was periodically renewed
and it was matured on 26.8.2015. The recitals in Ext.A5 would
show that fixed deposit in question maintained with the 2 nd
respondent bank was being operated on "Either or Survivor" basis.
Since the fixed deposit which is the subject matter of the petition
stands in the joint name of appellant and the 1st respondent, the
prayer of the appellant to declare him as the exclusive owner of
the said amount cannot be granted as rightly found by the learned
Family Court. Appellant and the 1st respondent have equal right
over the said fixed deposit and the interest accrued therein as
rightly held by the learned Family Court. The deposit in the
joint names confers equal ownership over the funds therein. It was
for that reason the Family Court granted the alternative prayer
sought by the appellant. This Court finds no reason to interfere
with the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Family
Mat.A No.75 of 2020 7 2025:KER:42512
Court.
In the result, the Mat.Appeal fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
Parties shall suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
ab
