Kerala High Court
Muhammed Rafi vs Mumthas on 9 October, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:74561
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 17TH ASWINA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 762 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.05.2016 IN OP NO.624 OF 2013 OF
FAMILY COURT, TIRUR
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MUHAMMED RAFI
AGED 33 YEARS, S/O MOIDEEN, KALADIPALLIYALIL, NEAR
NISKARAPALLI, KALADY P.O, PONNANI TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 679 582, REPRESENTED BY
THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER KOYA, S/O KUNHAHAMMAD
MUSALIYAR, VELLATTU VALAPPIL (H), KOLATHARA KUNNU,
KALADY AMSOM, KEEZHMURI DESOM, POST KALADEY,
PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2 MOIDEEN
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O CHERIYA MUHAMMED,
KALADIPALLIYALIL, NEAR NISKARAPALLI, KALADY P.O,
PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 679 582.
3 AYISHA
AGED 53 YEARS, W/O MOIDEEN, KALADIPALLIYALIL, NEAR
NISKARAPALLI, KALADY P.O, PONNANI TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 679 582.
2025:KER:74561
Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2016
-: 2 :-
4 SHAFEEKA
AGED 23 YEARS, D/O MOIDEEN, KALADIPALLIYALIL,
NEAR NISKARAPALLI, KALADY P.O, PONNANI TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 679 582.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
SHRI.ANILKUMAR V. (VAZHARAMBIL)
SMT.A.P.RUFAIJA
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 MUMTHAS
AGED 23 YEARS, D/O ALI P.P, PUTHANPEEDIKAYIL,
CHEKANNUR, MUDUR AMSOM, CHEKANUR DESOM, MUDUR
P.O, PONNANI TALUK, PIN 679 578.
2 VAFA NOURIN
AGED 4 YEARS
4 YEARS, (MINOR), PUTHANPEEDIKAYIL, CHEKANNUR,
MUDUR AMSOM, CHEKANUR DESOM, MUDUR P.O,
PONNANI TALUK, PIN 679 578. (MINOR REPRESENTED
BY MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT).
BY ADV SHRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
09.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:74561
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2016
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 9th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
Sathish Ninan, J.
The decree for return of gold ornaments and for past
maintenance is under challenge by the respondents in the
Family Court.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per the status of the Family Court.
3. The marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 1st
respondent was solemnised on 29.01.2011. In the wedlock, the
2nd petitioner was born. According to the petitioner (1 st
petitioner), in connection with her marriage, her father had
provided her with 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments. At the
time of marriage, she was adorned with 60 sovereigns of gold
2025:KER:74561
ornaments, including the above-mentioned 50 sovereigns, the
'Mahar' given by the 1st respondent, and the gold gifted by
her relatives. Later, the parties fell apart. It is alleged
that her 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments were
misappropriated by the respondents. The original petition
was filed seeking a decree for return/recovery of 50
sovereigns of gold ornaments and also past maintenance.
4. The respondents denied the contention that the
petitioner had 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and the
alleged misappropriation. The financial capacity of the
petitioner's father to provide her with such a quantity of
gold ornaments was also denied.
5. The Family Court granted a decree for return of 50
sovereigns of gold ornaments and past maintenance at the
rate of Rs.4,000/- per month to the 1 st petitioner and
2025:KER:74561
Rs.2,000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner (minor child).
6. We have heard the learned counsel on either side.
7. Though the respondents denied the claim that the
petitioner's father had provided her with 50 sovereigns of
gold ornaments at the time of marriage, we find that the
claim has been sufficiently established with the evidence on
record. Ext.A1 series are the marriage photographs. Ext.A2
series are the bills for the purchase of gold ornaments,
though not the entirety. RW1 has admitted the fact that at
the time of marriage the petitioner was adorned with the
gold ornaments seen in Ext.A1 series photographs. Therefore,
the claim of the petitioner with regard to the quantity of
the gold ornaments is sufficiently established.
8. The allegation of the petitioner is that her 50
sovereigns of gold ornaments were misappropriated by the
2025:KER:74561
respondents for the construction of upstairs portion of
their residence and also for the purchase of a motorcycle
and a car. In the cross-examination of RW1, the construction
of the residence is admitted. RW1 deposed that, an amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- was expended for the construction of the
house. Ext.A8 is the photograph of the old house and
Ext.A8(a) is the photograph of the reconstructed house.
Though RW1 claimed that his father and younger brother were
employed abroad and there are documents to prove that they
had sent money through Bank for the construction, no such
documents were produced. This probabilises the case of the
petitioner that her gold ornaments were misappropriated by
the respondents for the reconstruction of the house.
9. The evidence of RW1 reveals that he uses a swift
car and he claims that it belongs to his brother. No
2025:KER:74561
document to establish the same was produced. He produced
Exts.B3 and B4 loan documents evidencing availing of a Bank
loan for the purchase of a motorcycle. Exts.B3 and B4 reveal
that such a loan was availed in the year 2011 after the
marriage. If the respondents were having sufficient funds
with them, there is no necessity to avail a loan to purchase
the motorcycle. This only probabilises the allegation of the
petitioner with regard to the misappropriation of gold
ornaments. Incidentally, it is also to be noticed that
Ext.B2 FIR lodged by the petitioner also mentions about the
misappropriation of gold ornaments. Though specific
allegations are levelled against respondents 2 to 4, they
had not mounted the witness box and denied the allegations.
On the above materials, we concur with the Family Court in
having granted a decree in favour of the petitioner.
2025:KER:74561
10. Now, coming to the claim for past maintenance, all
that has been awarded is Rs.4,000/- per month to the 1 st
petitioner and Rs.2,000/- per month to the 2 nd petitioner
(minor child). Even going by the case of the respondents,
the 1st respondent-husband is employed at Oman as an
A.C.Mechanic. The maintenance ordered cannot, in any manner,
be said to be exorbitant. No interference is called for with
regard to the same.
There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal fails and
is dismissed. No cost.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
yd
