Kerala High Court
Jose Paul vs Suja Abraham on 24 March, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:24730
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.07.2015 IN OP NO.704 OF 2013 OF
FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA
-----
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SUJA ABRAHAM,
AGED 45 YEARS,
D/O.ABRAHAM, ANCHIYEKKARA HOUSE, NEAR MUTTOM CHURCH,
CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY, CHERTHALA VILLAGE,
CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
B.PRAMOD
ATHUL M.V.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
JOSE PAUL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O.PAUL, AZCHANGATTIL, KARUVNNOOR DESOM,
PARATHUSSERI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 711.
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
24.03.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.471/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:24730
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.07.2015 IN OP NO.704 OF 2013 OF
FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA
-----
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION:
JOSE PAUL, AGED 52,
S/O PAUL, ANCHANGATTIL, KARUVANNOOR DESOM,
PORATHUSSERI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION:
SUJA ABRAHAM,
AGED 42, D/O ABRAHAM, ANCHIYEKARA HOUSE,
NEAR MUTTOM CHURCH, CHETHALA MUNICIPALITY,
CHERTHALA VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688001.
BY ADVS.
S.SANAL KUMAR (SR.)
B.PRAMOD
ATHUL M.V.
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
24.03.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.144/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:24730
SATHISH NINAN &
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat. Appeal Nos.144 of 2016 &
471 of 2016
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2025
J U D G M E N T
Sathish Ninan, J.
OP No.704 of 2013 from which these appeals arise
was filed by the wife against the husband for
realisation of patrimony, return of gold ornaments, and
for maintenance. While the prayer for maintenance was
granted by the Family Court, the other reliefs were
declined. Challenging the respective part of the decree
which are against them, the wife and the husband are in
appeal.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized
on 29.12.2002. It is the claim of the wife that, in
connection with the marriage she was provided with 50
sovereigns of gold ornaments and an amount of ₹ 3 lakhs
as patrimony. The relationship fell apart. It is alleged
Mat. Appeal Nos.144 of 2016 &
471 of 2016
2025:KER:24730
that the gold and money were misappropriated by the
husband. She seeks for return of the same. She also
claimed ₹ 25,000/- as monthly maintenance.
3. The respondent denied the claim of entrustment
of gold and money. It was contended that whatever
ornaments the petitioner had, were in her own custody.
The claim for maintenance was also denied.
4. The Family Court held that the petitioner-wife
failed to prove the entrustment of gold and money as
claimed by her, and rejected the claim. The court
ordered maintenance at the rate of ₹ 10,000/- per month.
The respective parties are in appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel on either side.
6. To substantiate the claim for gold, the
petitioner relied on Ext.A18 photograph taken on the
date of marriage. To substantiate the claim for payment
of money, the petitioner relied on Ext.A19 bank account
statement. Ext.19 is in the name of the petitioner and
her mother. It shows the withdrawal of a sum of
Mat. Appeal Nos.144 of 2016 &
471 of 2016
2025:KER:24730
₹ 3,13,500/- on 15.11.2002. The engagement had taken
place on 16.11.2002.
7. At paragraph 2 of the original petition it is
alleged thus :-
"..... As per the persistent demands, cash to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-
(Rupees Three lakhs) and gold ornaments to the tune of 50 (fifty)
sovereigns were entrusted with the respondent. This were entrusted to the
respondent with the sole intention of accumulating wealth for the
petitioner."
There is no claim in the original petition that the
money was paid on the date of engagement. The averments
indicate that the entrustment was after the marriage.
Further, the averments suggest that the gold ornaments
and money were entrusted together. At paragraph 5 of the
original petition it is alleged thus :-
"During the early days of marriage, the respondent and his mother had
told series of stories of burglary and Chain snatching in and around
Karuvannoor. The petitioner bonafide believing these stories had
entrusted the 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the respondent to be kept
under safe custody. Those 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments were not seen
by the petitioner thereafter. ....."
Mat. Appeal Nos.144 of 2016 &
471 of 2016
2025:KER:24730
The cause of action pleaded in the original petition is
as under :-
"The cause of action for this petition had arisen on 29.12.2002, the date
of marriage and the date of entrustment of cash and gold at Cherthala
which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court."
Evidently, going by the cause of action pleaded the
alleged entrustment of gold and money was on 29.12.2002
ie. the date of marriage whereas in the other parts of
the original petition, the pleading is that the
entrustment was "during the early days of marriage".
8. The petitioner was examined as PW1. Proof
affidavit was filed by her in lieu of chief examination.
It is in tune with the averments in the original
petition. During the course of the evidence of PW1,
Ext.A19 bank statement was produced to evidence
withdrawal of ₹ 3,13,500/- on 15.11.2002. A case is then
sought to be urged that, on 16.11.2002, during the
engagement ceremony an amount of ₹ 3 lakhs was handed
Mat. Appeal Nos.144 of 2016 &
471 of 2016
2025:KER:24730
over to the respondent. Noticeably, till that stage
there was no such case for the petitioner.
9. With regard to the alleged entrustment also,
there is discrepancy in the evidence of PW1. While at
one portion she would depose that the entrustment with
the respondent was after they returned from her house at
Thrissur, yet another portion it is stated that the
entrustment was on the Sunday after the marriage. The
court noticed that if it is accepted, then the
entrustment was on 05.01.2003, while she was at her
parental house at Thrissur. She would further swear
that, after the marriage, while she was going to her
parental home from her matrimonial home, she entrusted
two large chains with her mother-in-law and was wearing
only the remaining gold ornaments. So also, while the
claim is that the petitioner had 50 sovereigns of gold
ornaments, going by the list of ornaments given at
Mat. Appeal Nos.144 of 2016 &
471 of 2016
2025:KER:24730
paragraph 8 of the original petition, the total weight
is more than that.
10. The parties lived together for only
approximately four months. They were living separately
since the year 2005. However, the claim for gold and
money is made only in the year 2013. It is highly
improbable that if 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and
₹ 3 lakhs belonging to the petitioner were with the
respondent, the same would not have been demanded for a
period of eight years.
11. Incidentally it is noticed that, the petitioner
had even made a futile attempt to implead the brother of
the husband as an additional respondent in the original
petition alleging that the gold and money were entrusted
with the respondent and his brother. The petitioner
never had a case even in the original petition or in the
evidence with regard to entrustment of gold and money
Mat. Appeal Nos.144 of 2016 &
471 of 2016
2025:KER:24730
with the respondent's brother.
12. As is noticeable from the above, the case of
the petitioner is full of inconsistencies. The Family
Court has taken due note of the same and has chosen to
decline the claim. It is also to be borne in mind that
the Family Court had the opportunity to watch the
demeanor of the witnesses. No material sufficient enough
to overturn the finding of the Family Court is brought
to our notice. Therefore, we concur with the finding of
the Family Court negativing the claim for gold and
money.
13. Coming to the claim for maintenance, the
petitioner had earlier filed OP 866/2010 for restitution
of conjugal rights. In Ext.A6 reply notice, the
petitioner had expressed her willingness to resume
cohabitation. The above indicates that the petitioner
was willing to live along with the respondent. The
Mat. Appeal Nos.144 of 2016 &
471 of 2016
2025:KER:24730
Family Court noticed that the respondent-husband
submitted before the court that he is mentally separated
from the petitioner. The petitioner-wife alleged that
she was deserted without any valid grounds. She alleged
that the respondent has a monthly income of ₹ 1,50,000/-
from his business and ₹ 20,000/- as the rent from the
building owned by him.
14. It is not in dispute that the respondent-
husband belongs to a well off family. Ext.A2 bio-data
given by him inviting proposals for marriage and Ext.A3
wedding invitation reveal his financial status. The
documents were marked without any objection. Ext.A3
mentions the names of various business concerns of the
respondent. With regard to the building allegedly given
on rent, the respondent claimed that it is laying
vacant. The respondent has not cared to prove the same.
As noticed by the Family Court, an ordinary prudent man
Mat. Appeal Nos.144 of 2016 &
471 of 2016
2025:KER:24730
will not keep such building as vacant. The above
sufficiently proves the financial status of the
respondent. Though the respondent claimed that the
petitioner is conducting a shop and has income
therefrom, there is total lack of evidence with regard
to the same. The Family Court has taken note of all the
above aspects and ordered monthly maintenance at the
rate of ₹ 10,000/-. We find that the quantum fixed is
reasonable and warrants no interference.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner points
out that the interim direction by this Court to pay
maintenance at the rate of ₹ 5,000/- per month was also
not complied with by the respondent. For the said reason
the pleadings of the respondent is to be struck off, it
is argued. On the findings as entered by us on merits,
we do not think that such a course is necessary. It
shall be open for the petitioner to realise maintenance
Mat. Appeal Nos.144 of 2016 &
471 of 2016
2025:KER:24730
ordered, in accordance with law. Having regard to the
refusal on the part of the husband to pay the
maintenance, it is ordered that the arrears of
maintenance shall bear interest at the rate of 9% per
annum. No other contentions are urged.
Resultantly, while affirming the decree and
judgment of the Family Court, it is ordered that the
wife shall be entitled to realise the arrears of
maintenance at the rate of 9% p.a. No other interference
is called for. The appeals are disposed of as above.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. To Judge
