Kerala High Court
Vishnu M. Nair Alias Vishnu ... vs Anju M. Alias Anju Madhusoodanan Pillai on 8 October, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 16TH ASWINA, 1947
OP (FC) NO. 556 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.07.2025 IN IA NOS.7 & 8 OF 2025 IN
OP NO.742 OF 2022 OF FAMILY COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
VISHNU M. NAIR ALIAS VISHNU MADHUSOODANAN NAIR
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. MADHUSOODANAN NAIR, NARAYANEEYAM, TC (OLD)
4/1568(1), (NEW) 24/3037, DEVASWOM BOARD JUNCTION,
KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003 RESIDING AT
PC1 504 J.P GREENS SECTOR 128 GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR,
UTTAR PRADESH, PIN - 201304
SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR
SRI.P.M.SATHEESH
SHRI.PRAKASH PUTHIADAM
RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2 &
RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 :
1 ANJU M. ALIAS ANJU MADHUSOODANAN PILLAI
AGED 37 YEARS, D/O. MADHUSOODANAN PILLAI B.,
MANJARI, A-14C, RISHIMANGLAM, VANCHIYOOR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
2 VEDARTH VISHNU NAIR, AGED 9 YEARS
S/O. ANJU M. AND VISHNU M NAIR, (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY
HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND ANJU M., ALIAS ANJU
MADHUSOODANAN PILLAI, THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN
MANJARI, A-14C, RISHIMANGLAM, VANCHIYOOR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
3 MADHUSOODANAN NAIR V, AGED 75 YEARS
S/O. LATE VELAYUDHAN PILLAI K., NARAYANEEYAM, T.C
2025:KER:74262
OP (FC) NO. 556 OF 2025
2
4/1568(1), NEW 24/3037, DEVASWOM BOARD JUNCTION,
KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
4 MALATHI DEVI S, AGED 73 YEARS
W/O.MADHUSOODANAN NAIR V., NARAYANEEYAM, T.C
4/1568(1), NEW 24/3037, DEVASWOM BOARD JUNCTION,
KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
5 THE MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA, (FORMERLY STATE BANK OF
TRAVANCORE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM MAIN BRANCH),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY BRANCH, FIRST FLOOR,
ANACUTCHERY BUILDING (FEDERAL TOWERS), YMCA ROAD,
STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
SMT.V.S.RAKHEE
SMT.K.J.GISHA
SMT.AKSHAYA S.NAIR
SHRI.JAYAKUMAR C.
SRI BIJU BALAKRISHNAN-R1 &R2;
SRI P GOPAL-R5
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:74262
OP (FC) NO. 556 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The petitioner challenges Ext.P13 order of the learned
Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which has dismissed IA
No.7/2025 and IA No.8/2025 filed by them in OP No.742/2022.
2. Sri.K.P.Sreekumar - learned counsel for the petitioner,
explained that OP No.742/2022 was filed by respondents 1 and 2
herein seeking, inter alia, return of their gold and patrimony. He
submitted that his client never opposed the return of gold, if any,
of the first respondent in a joint bank locker; and that his bona
fides is manifest from the fact that he himself obtained Ext.P6
order, whereby, the Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner
to "ascertain the details of the gold ornaments including the
number, weight, fashion etc." (sic). He contended that, however,
since the ornaments belonging to his client are also available in
the locker, he filed IA No.7/2025 seeking a direction to the first
respondent to produce a list of her ornaments; along with IA
No.8/2025, to review Ext.P6 order to such effect. He alleged that
the learned Family Court, however, did not consider any of the
factual factors in the right perspective and has now dismissed
both the applications through Ext.P13 order, which has
2025:KER:74262
OP (FC) NO. 556 OF 2025
constrained his client to approach this Court.
3. We see from the endorsements on file that the special
messenger deputed to serve notice on respondents 3 and 4 has
been returned with the endorsement "they are not in station"
(sic). However, Sri.Gireesh Varma appears for them and
explained that his clients had been in Calicut at the time when
the messenger visited their house. He added that his clients have
nothing to offer in submissions than what has been made by
Sri.K.P.Sreekumar, and that they have no objection to the gold
ornaments being properly identified and given to respondents 1
and 2 if so found.
4. Sri.Biju Balakrishnan - appearing for respondents 1
and 2, controverted the afore recorded submissions of
Sri.K.P.Sreekumar, saying that, it has been expressly conceded
by the petitioner before the learned Family Court in his counter
statement that the ornaments in the joint bank locker in question
belong to his clients. He submitted that when there was such an
affirmation, the filing of IA No.7/2025, seeking a list of gold
ornaments from his clients, was not only unnecessary but
confutative. He argued that, as a corollary, IA No.8/2025,
seeking review of Ext.P6 order, was also unnecessary. He thus
2025:KER:74262
OP (FC) NO. 556 OF 2025
prayed that this Original Petition be dismissed.
5. Sri.P.Gopal - learned standing counsel for the fifth
respondent - Bank, submitted that his client has no role in the
controversy between the parties and that they will abide by any
order to be issued by this Court.
6. We do not understand why there should be a
controversy between the parties as of now. This is because, in
the counter statement filed before the learned Family Court, the
petitioner in paragraph 14 thereof, clearly stated that "it is true
that certain ornaments of the petitioner was kept in the locker.
Later ornaments of the child were also kept in the locker" (sic).
Thereafter, he offered that respondents 1 and 2 can take their
gold from the bank locker, but while saying so, he added: "so that
he can take his gold kept in the locker and locker can be closed"
(sic). It is this line which is now projected before us by
Sri.K.P.Sreekumar - learned counsel for the petitioner, saying
that the gold ornaments belonging to his client are also in the
locker; and it is obviously on such basis that IA No.7/2025 has
been filed. When the counter statement of the petitioner filed
before the learned Family Court does not contain any details of
his gold ornaments and when he has made an affirmation that the
2025:KER:74262
OP (FC) NO. 556 OF 2025
ones in the locker belonged to respondents 1 and 2, obviously, if
he had a case otherwise, he should have volunteered to file a list
of ornaments before the learned Family Court, rather than asking
the respondents to do so.
7. Of course, the findings of the learned Family Court,
that there is an admission by the petitioner that his ornaments
are not in the locker can only be seen to be prima facie.
Indubitably, therefore, it would be open to the petitioner to move
the learned Family Court itself with a list of ornaments, so that
once the locker is opened and the inventory taken, it would be up
to the learned Family Court to take a final decision as to the
distribution of the assets as found necessary.
8. In such perspective, though we do not find any reason
to intervene with the impugned orders, we clarify that the
petitioner will have one opportunity - which he can exercise
within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment - to file a list of ornaments that he claims to be in
the joint bank locker. Once this is done, or if it is not done within
the afore fixed time frame, the Advocate Commissioner appointed
will inspect the locker and act in terms of the impugned orders.
After we dictated this part of the judgment,
2025:KER:74262
OP (FC) NO. 556 OF 2025
Sri.K.P.Sreekumar - learned counsel for the petitioner, requested
that the learned Family Court be directed to take out the articles
after the learned Commissioner, make an inventory and place it
in a safe deposit, for being distributed or handed over to the
parties as the case may be, so that the locker itself can be closed.
We leave this to the learned Family Court to decide appropriately,
either on the application of the parties or otherwise.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
stu
2025:KER:74262
OP (FC) NO. 556 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 556/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO.742 OF 2022, DATED
22.03.2010 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY
THE PETITIONER IN O.P.NO.742 OF 2022, DATED
NIL BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN I.A.NO.629 OF
2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.P.NO.713 OF
2017, DATED 26.02.2018 BEFORE THE FAMILY
COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT IN I.A.NO.629 OF 2018, DATED
10.04.2018 ALONG WITH THE TYPED COPY OF THE
3RD PAGE
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.4 OF 2025
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2025 IN
I.A.NO.4 OF 2025
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.8 OF 2025, DATED
19.05.2025
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.7 OF 2025, DATED
20.03.2025
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.6 OF 2025, DATED
20.03.2025
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT HEREIN IN MAY 2025
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT OPPOSING THE REQUEST FOR SUBMITTING
A LIST OF THE ORNAMENTS BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
IN APRIL 2025
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER IN
I.A.NO.7 AND 8 OF 2025, DATED 23.07.2025
Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CASE NO.
187/2023, ACJM - VI, GHAZIABAD
Exhibit 15 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION IN P14
JUDGMENT
