Kerala High Court

Subhadra vs Manilal on 24 October, 2025

Author: Sathish Ninan

Bench: Sathish Ninan

Mat.Appeal No.558/2016
                                     1


                                                           2025:KER:79149

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

                                     &

                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR

      FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1947

                         MAT.APPEAL NO. 558 OF 2016

          AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.03.2016 IN OP NO.240 OF 2005 OF

FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

      1        SUBHADRA
               POIKA VILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MADAVOOR CHERRY,
               MADAVOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYANKEEZHU TALUK,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

      2        AJILLAL (MINOR)
               POIKA VILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MADAVOOR CHERRY,
               MADAVOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYANKEEZHU TALUK,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
               REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST APPELLANT GRAND MOTHER.


               BY ADV SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

      1        MANILAL
               MANILAL BHAVANAM, EZHAMKULAM MURI,
               THINKALKARIKKAM VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM,
               KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 286.

      2        BALAKRISHNAN
               MANILAL BHAVANAM, EZHAMKULAM MURI,
               THINKALKARIKKAM VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM,
               KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 286.
 Mat.Appeal No.558/2016
                                     2


                                                            2025:KER:79149

      3       SHYLA
              SAJEEV MANDIRAM, CHERUVAKKAL; ELAMADU VILLAGE,
              KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691 268.

      4       HARILAL
              MANILAL BHAVANAM, EZHAMKULAM MURI, THINKALKARIKKAM
              VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691 286.


              BY ADVS.
              SMT.JESSY S.SALIM
              SHRI.A.D.SHAJAN



      THIS    MATRIMONIAL   APPEAL   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   HEARING   ON
22.10.2025, THE COURT ON 24.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Mat.Appeal No.558/2016
                                           3


                                                                    2025:KER:79149



                 SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
                  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                        Mat.Appeal No.558 OF 2016
                  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                Dated this the 24th day of October, 2025

                                     JUDGMENT

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

The appellants, who are the mother and minor child of

late Sreelatha, filed O.P. No. 240/2005 before the Family

Court, Kottarakara, seeking recovery of gold ornaments, money,

and past as well as future maintenance for the second

appellant, against the respondents, who are the husband and

in-laws of late Sreelatha. By the judgment impugned in this

appeal, the Family Court partly allowed the claim for recovery

of money and gold ornaments but rejected the other claims.

2. Sreelatha married the first respondent on 31.12.1998 as

per Hindu religious rites. The appellants alleged that

Sreelatha was given 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and

₹1,00,000/- at the time of her marriage, which were later

2025:KER:79149

entrusted to the respondents, but they were later

misappropriated by them. It is further asserted by the

appellants that when the respondents ill-treated Sreelatha by

demanding ₹2,00,000/- more, she committed suicide on

26.09.2001 at the matrimonial home. Accordingly, they claimed

₹2,20,000/- together with interest towards the value of the

gold ornaments scheduled in the petition and also sought

recovery of ₹1,00,000/-, which was allegedly entrusted to the

respondents, together with interest, besides claiming past and

future maintenance for the second appellant, the child born in

the said wedlock, at the rate of ₹1,500/- per month. They also

claimed the value of household articles given to the

respondents.

3. The respondents denied the above allegations and

contended that Sreelatha had only 35 sovereigns of gold

ornaments at the time of marriage and that all those ornaments

were retained by her. It was further contended that a major

portion of those ornaments had been utilized for the marriage

of her sister, with the consent of the first respondent.

2025:KER:79149

4. The evidence in this case consists of the oral

testimony of PW1 to PW4 and DW1, and Exts. A1 series and A2,

and B1 series to B10 series. After evaluating the evidence,

the Family Court found that the appellants are entitled to

recover ₹1,60,000/- towards the proportionate value of 40

sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹13,700/- towards the value

of household utensils, with interest at 6% per annum from the

date of suit till the date of realization, together with the

cost of the suit, from the first respondent and his assets.

The court found that there was no reliable evidence to show

that ₹1,00,000/- had been entrusted to the respondents. It was

also found that, since the second appellant had filed a

separate maintenance case claiming maintenance, no relief was

to be granted towards past and future maintenance.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on both

sides.

6. The respondents did not prefer any appeal against the

judgment passed by the Family Court. Thus, it remains

2025:KER:79149

undisputed that the appellants are entitled to recover 40

sovereigns of gold ornaments from them, besides the value of

utensils. Even though it was contended by the appellants that

they were entitled to recover 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments,

after elaborately discussing the evidence on record, the

Family Court concluded that they could be permitted to recover

the value of only 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments.

7. During the course of the hearing, the learned counsel

appearing for the appellants fairly limited their claim to the

present market value of 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments

entrusted to the respondents. The appellants further filed an

application seeking amendment of their pleadings to modify the

relief claimed in the petition so as to permit them to recover

the market value of the gold ornaments as on the date of

recovery, instead of the fixed amount stated in the original

relief. The respondents have not filed any objection to the

said application.

2025:KER:79149

8. As the law is well settled that claimants are entitled

to recover the market value of gold ornaments as on the date

of recovery, we deem it appropriate to allow the said relief

even without insisting that the appellants formally amend the

original petition. This Court, in Syamini S. Nair and Others

v. Sreekanth R. [2022 (3) KHC 145], held that even if an

alternative relief for the market value of gold ornaments as

on the date of recovery is not sought, in view of Rule 7 of

Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court has the

discretion to stipulate such relief in a claim for return of

movable property, where the specific movable property is not

returned to the claimant pursuant to the directions of the

court. The relevant observation reads thus:

"36. Going by the above Rule, it shall not be necessary to ask for general or other relief which may always be given as the Court may think just, to the same extent as if it had been asked for. So, for doing complete justice, the Court can grant a general or other relief even if it was not asked, as if it had been asked for. This position has been fortified by a Division Bench of this Court in Anilkumar K. v. Ajith and Others [2012 (4) KHC 546 : 2012 (4) KLT 545 : 2012 (4) KLJ 624 : ILR 2012 (4) Ker. 632]. It was held in that decision that the general principle is that every relief shall be stated specifically in the plaint. However, the power of the Court to grant just and proper relief to a party without its being specifically prayed for is also recognised by the second part of Order VII Rule 7 CPC. When the Family Court was convinced of

2025:KER:79149

the factum of entrustment of gold ornaments with the husband and in-laws in trust for the wife, and they were not returned after long years of entrustment, nothing prevents the Family Court from granting an alternative relief by awarding the value of the gold ornaments as on the date of payment. The rate of gold is readily available on the internet, and hence there is no difficulty in calculating the market value as on the date of payment. When the decree is for the return of the value of gold as on the date of payment, obviously, it shall not carry any interest."

9. In this case, the appellants have specifically

challenged the said finding and filed a petition seeking

amendment of the pleadings. Therefore, it is just and proper

to permit them to recover the actual market value of the gold

as on the date of recovery, if the respondents are not willing

to return the gold ornaments in specie. As stated above, no

other contentions were raised during the course of hearing.

10. In the above circumstances, the appeal is to be

allowed so as to modify the impugned judgment to the extent

indicated above.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The first

respondent is directed to return 40 sovereigns of gold