Kerala High Court
A.P.Ushakumari vs V.C.Radhakrishnan on 9 October, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:74576
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. 817 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.05.2014 IN OP NO.30 OF 2013
(OLD NO.693/20100 OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPPALAM
-----
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
A.P.USHAKUMARI,
D/O RAMAN, PARAKUNNATH HOUSE, MANJAKKAD, SHORANUR,
OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SUNIL KUMAR (PALAKKAD)
SMT.LEKSHMI S.SEKHER
SRI.K.J.SUNIL
SHRI.BABU SALIH
SMT.T.V.AATHIRA
RESPONDENT NOS.1,2,3/RESPONDENT NOS.1,2,3:
1 V.C.RADHAKRISHNAN,
S/O SHANKARAN, BHARATI NILAYM, PARAKKUNNATH,
VADANAMKURISSI, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679101.
*2 SANKARAN, [DECEASED]
S/O PUNDA, PARAKKUNNATH, BHARATI NILAYM,
VADANAMKURISSI, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679101.
2025:KER:74576
MAT.APPEAL NO. 817 OF 2014 -2-
3 UNNIKRISHNAN,
S/O SHANKARAN, KAILASAM, PANTHAKKAL PARAMBU, PATTAMBI,
OTTAPALAM TALUK-679101.
*[RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 3 ARE RECORDED AS LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED
R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 07.08.2025 IN MA 817/14]
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SREEHARI
SRI.S.ASHOK KUMAR.
SRI.GEO PAUL
SRI.JERRY VARGHESE
SRI.LENIN P. SUKUMARAN
SRI.C.R.PRAMOD
SMT.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
09.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:74576
SATHISH NINAN &
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat. Appeal No.817 of 2014
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 9th day of October, 2025
J U D G M E N T
Sathish Ninan, J.
Challenging the dismissal of the original petition filed
seeking return of gold ornaments and money, the petitioner-wife
is in appeal. The parties are hereinafter referred to as per
their status in the original petition.
2. The marriage between the petitioner and the first
respondent was solemnised on 03.12.2003. The second respondent is
the father of the first respondent and third respondent is the
brother of the first respondent. According to the petitioner, at
the time of marriage she was provided with 20 sovereigns of gold
ornaments and an almirah and utensils worth ₹ 1 lakh. Subsequent
to the marriage she was also provided with ₹ 50,000/-. The gold
ornaments and money were all entrusted with the respondents. The
parties fell apart. Accordingly the original petition is filed
seeking for recovery of the gold and movables.
2025:KER:74576
3. The first respondent remained ex parte. Respondents 2 and
3 filed a joint counter statement denying the allegation of
misappropriation levelled against them. They also denied the
petitioner's claim that she had 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments
and utensils worth ₹ 1 lakh. The alleged payment of ₹ 50,000/-
was also denied. They allege that the petition has been filed by
the petitioner in collusion with the first respondent.
4. The Family Court held that there is no evidence to prove
the petitioner's claim that she had 20 sovereigns of gold
ornaments and movables, and accordingly dismissed the original
petition.
5. We have heard learned counsel on either side.
6. To prove the quantity of gold ornaments which the
petitioner had at the time of marriage, all that is available is
Exts.A1 to A6 marriage photographs and the deposition of the
petitioner as PW1. On consideration of the said materials, the
claim of the petitioner that she had 20 sovereigns of gold
ornaments at the time of marriage is found probable. The
allegation of the petitioner is that, after the marriage, as was
demanded by the first respondent, the ornaments were entrusted
2025:KER:74576
with the respondents. The reason for such entrustment with
respondents 2 and 3 is alleged to be that the first respondent
did not have any almirah of his own to keep the ornaments. The
said contention is obviously inconsistent with the petitioner's
claim that at the time of marriage she was provided with articles
worth ₹ 1 lakh including an almirah. But for the bald averment,
there is no evidence to find that respondents 2 and 3 were
entrusted with the gold ornaments of the petitioner. The
entrustment could be with the first respondent. As noticed above,
the first respondent chose to remain ex parte. The claim of the
petitioner as against him remains unchallenged. However,
respondents 2 and 3 could not be made liable for the claim.
7. The petitioner would have retained some of the gold
ornaments with her for her personal use. It is quite improbable
that the entire gold ornaments available with her was entrusted
with the first respondent for safe custody. She must have had
approximately 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments with her for her
daily wear.
8. The claim for gold ornaments was negatived by the Family
Court pointing out that there is inconsistency in the quantity of
2025:KER:74576
the gold ornaments claimed in her pleadings and evidence; going
by the description given at paragraph 8 of the original petition,
the total weight of the ornaments is 17¼ sovereigns whereas going
by the description in the schedule to the petition it is 20¼
sovereigns. At the time of evidence the petitioner deposed that
she had 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments. We are of the opinion
that such minor variation in the quantity of the gold ornaments
is insignificant in the light of the evidence on the side of the
petitioner noticed above. We are unable to agree with the Family
Court in having negatived the claim for gold ornaments on that
reason.
9. On consideration of the entire evidence, we are of the
opinion that the decree could be granted in favour of the
petitioner for 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments.
10. With regard to the claim for utensils worth ₹1 lakh and
for an amount of ₹ 50,000/- allegedly given to the first
respondent subsequently, there is total lack of evidence. Hence
the said claim was rightly rejected by the Family Court.
In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. While
affirming the dismissal of the original petition as against
2025:KER:74576
respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner is granted a decree for
realisation of 15 sovereigns gold ornaments or its value from the
first respondent. No costs.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. To Judge
