Kerala High Court
Sumesh Devadas vs Jisha Jacob on 21 October, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
Mat.Appeal Nos.811/2015, 812/2015, 817/2015
1
2025:KER:76912
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 29TH ASWINA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 811 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.03.2015 IN OP(G&W) NO.31 OF
2011 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA
APPELLANT:-(PETITIONER IN O.P.(G&W)31/2011):
SUMESH DEVADAS
S/O.DR N. K. DEVADAS, WARD NO XVI,
HOUSE NO. 292, ADARSA, MANGARAM MURI,
KONNI P O & VILLAGE, KONNI
(FORMERLY KOZHENCHERRY TALUK)
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689691
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.SABU PULLAN
SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN
SHRI.R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN
SHRI.BHARATH MOHAN
DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
RESPONDENT:-(RESPONDENT IN O.P.(G&W)31/2011):
JISHA JACOB
D/O.P V JACOB, JINU BHAVAN,
PALAMUKKUCHERY, ANCHAL P O,
EDAMULACKAL VILLAGE,
PATHANAPURAM TALUK - 691 306,
PRESENTLY R/A.C/O.P V JACOB,
P O BOX NO 8313, FLYING CARPET EXPRESS,
SHARJAH AIRPORT FREE ZONE,
SHARJAH, UAE
Mat.Appeal Nos.811/2015, 812/2015, 817/2015
2
2025:KER:76912
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.M.JASMIN
SRI.LIJO JOSEPH (THOPPIL)
SHRI.NIDHI SAM JOHNS
SRI.A.V.THOMAS (SR.)
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
15.10.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL.812/2015, 817/2015, THE COURT ON
21.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.811/2015, 812/2015, 817/2015
3
2025:KER:76912
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 29TH ASWINA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 812 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.03.2015 IN OP NO.1032 OF 2011
OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA
APPELLANTS :-(RESPONDENTS IN O.P.NO.1032/2011):
1 SUMESH DEVADAS
S/O.DR.N.K.DEVADAS, WARD NO.XVI,
HOUSE NO.292, ADARSA, MANGARAM MURI,
KONNI P.O.& VILLAGE, KONNI
(FORMERLY KOZHENCHERRY TALUK),
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689691.
2 DR.N.K.DEVADAS
WARD NO.XVI, HOUSE NO.292, ADARSA,
MANGARAM MURI, KONNI P.O.& VILLAGE,
KONNI (FORMERLY KOZHENCHERRY TALUK),
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689691. (DIED)
APPELLANTS 1 AND 3 RECORDED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.
3 MARYKUTTY
W/O.DR.N.K.DEVADAS, WARD NO.XVI,
HOUSE NO.292, ADARSA, MANGARAM MURI,
KONNI P.O.& VILLAGE, KONNI
(FORMERLY KOZHENCHERRY TALUK),
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689691.
(APPELLANTS NO.1 AND NO.3 ARE RECORDED AS THE LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED 2ND APPELLANT, AS PER
ORDER DATED 23-1-2025 IN I.A.2/2024 IN MAT.APPEAL
812/2015)
Mat.Appeal Nos.811/2015, 812/2015, 817/2015
4
2025:KER:76912
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.SABU PULLAN
SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN
SHRI.R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN
SHRI.BHARATH MOHAN
DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
RESPONDENT:-(PETITIONER IN O.P.NO.1032/2011):
JISHA JACOB
D/O.P.V.JACOB, JINU BHAVAN, PALAMUKKUCHERY,
ANCHAL P.O., EDAMULACKAL VILLAGE,
PATHANAPURAM TALUK-691306 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
C/O.P.V.JACOB, P.O.BOX NO.8313, FLYING CARPET EXPRESS,
SHARJAH AIRPORT FREE ZONE, SHARJAH, UAE.
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.M.JASMIN
SRI.LIJO JOSEPH (THOPPIL)
SHRI.NIDHI SAM JOHNS
SRI.A.V.THOMAS (SR.)
SRI.A.KEVIN THOMAS
SMT.CELIA SANTHOSH
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
15.10.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL.811/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 21.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.811/2015, 812/2015, 817/2015
5
2025:KER:76912
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 29TH ASWINA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 817 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.03.2015 IN OP NO.1147 OF 2011
OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA
APPELLANT :- (PETITIONER IN O.P.1147/2011):
SUMESH DEVADAS
S/O.DR.N.K.DEVADAS, WARD NO.XVI,
HOUSE NO.292, ADARSA, MANGARAM MURI,
KONNI P.O.& VILLAGE, KONNI
(FORMERLY KOZHENCHERRY TALUK),
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689691.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.SABU PULLAN
SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN
SHRI.R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN
SHRI.BHARATH MOHAN
DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
RESPONDENT:- (RESPONDENT IN O.P.1147/2011):
JISHA JACOB
D/O.P.V.JACOB, JINU BHAVAN,
PALAMUKKUCHERY, ANCHAL P.O.,
EDAMULACKAL VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK-691306
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT C/O.P.V.JACOB,
P.O.BOX NO.8313, FLYING CARPET EXPRESS,
SHARJAH AIRPORT FREE ZONE, SHARJAH, UAE.
Mat.Appeal Nos.811/2015, 812/2015, 817/2015
6
2025:KER:76912
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.M.JASMIN
SRI.LIJO JOSEPH (THOPPIL)
SHRI.NIDHI SAM JOHNS
SRI.A.V.THOMAS (SR.)
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
15.10.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL.811/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 21.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.811/2015, 812/2015, 817/2015
7
2025:KER:76912
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat.Appeal Nos.811, 812 &
817 OF 2015
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 21st day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
By the impugned common judgment, the Family Court,
Thiruvalla allowed the respondent/wife in the above appeals to
recover ₹14,91,000/- as patrimony and ₹10,00,000/- as the
market value of gold ornaments from her husband and his
parents. The court further declined to grant permanent custody
of the younger minor daughter to the appellant. The petition
filed by the appellant/husband for damages was also dismissed.
The above appeals are preferred by the husband together with
his parents against the said common judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will
hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in Mat. Appeal
No.812 of 2015. The marriage between the first appellant and
the respondent was solemnised on 29.04.2002 as per Christian
Mat.Appeal Nos.811/2015, 812/2015, 817/2015
2025:KER:76912
law, and two children were born in the wedlock. The elder son
was born on 28.05.2003 and the younger daughter on 11.03.2009.
3. The respondent filed O.P. No.1032 of 2011 against the
appellants for recovery of 100 sovereigns of gold ornaments
allegedly entrusted to them at the time of marriage, and for
realisation of ₹14,91,000/- as patrimony allegedly given at
the time of engagement and thereafter. According to the
respondent, the appellants misappropriated the said amount and
the gold ornaments entrusted to them, and hence she is
entitled to recover the same.
4. The appellants denied the said allegations and
contended that they received only ₹50,000/- at the time of
betrothal. They further contended that they were unaware of
the quantity of gold ornaments possessed by the respondent at
the time of marriage, and that the respondent kept those
ornaments in a private bank run by her relative, Major George,
from where they were later stolen. The appellants also
contended that they hail from a rich and aristocratic family
and had no need to use the respondent's ornaments. It was
Mat.Appeal Nos.811/2015, 812/2015, 817/2015
2025:KER:76912
further contended that the first appellant is an MBA graduate
and the second appellant, his father, is a medical
practitioner.
5. Upon evaluating the evidence, the trial court
concluded that the respondent had entrusted 50 sovereigns of
gold ornaments to the appellants, and hence they are liable to
return the same or pay its market value of ₹10,00,000/-, as
claimed in the petition. The court further found that the
appellants had received ₹14,91,000/- from the respondent as
patrimony and are bound to return it.
6. The first appellant filed O.P.(G&W) No.31 of 2011
seeking custody of the minor girl child, while the custody of
the elder son remained with him. According to the appellant,
he was deeply concerned about the future of his daughter and
contended that the respondent was unable to look after her. He
urged that, for the general welfare of the child, it was
necessary to grant him custody. The respondent stoutly opposed
the same, contending that the child required the company and
care of her mother. After evaluating the evidence, the Family
Mat.Appeal Nos.811/2015, 812/2015, 817/2015
2025:KER:76912
Court permitted the first appellant to have interim custody of
the minor daughter for ten days during each annual vacation.
7. The first appellant further filed O.P. No.1147/2011
claiming ₹25,00,000/- as damages from the respondent,
contending that he was compelled to resign from his job abroad
due to the respondent's misdeeds and that he incurred debts
amounting to ₹6,89,140/- owing to her lavish lifestyle. The
respondent denied these allegations and contended that it was
she who had suffered substantial loss due to the appellants'
conduct. Upon appreciating the evidence adduced by both sides,
the trial court rejected the claim for damages, holding that
the appellant had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to
substantiate his claim.
8. Alongside the above cases, the first appellant filed a
petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty, and the
respondent filed a petition seeking custody of the elder son.
By a common judgment, the court allowed the petition for
divorce and dismissed the petition for custody of the elder
son. However, the court granted the respondent interim custody
Mat.Appeal Nos.811/2015, 812/2015, 817/2015
2025:KER:76912
of the elder son for three days each during Onam and Christmas
vacations, and for ten days during the midsummer vacation. The
said orders are not under challenge before this Court.
9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on both
sides. The learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance
on Bexy Michael v. Michael [2010 (4) KLT SN 55 (C.No.62)],
Rajesh P.P. and Another v. Deepthi P.R. [2021 (4) KHC 242],
Prasad v. Greeshma [2025 (4) KLT SN 29 (C.No.31)], Sithara v.
Harikrishnan Nair [2011 (4) KLT 492], Remi Abraham v. Reji
[2024 (4) KLT 896], and the judgments of this court in Mat.
Appeal No.255 of 2014 dated 06.02.2024, Mat. Appeal No.361 of
2009 dated 16.01.2017, and Mat. Appeal No.785 of 2015 dated
12.04.2017 to substantiate his argument that in matrimonial
disputes the courts have to adopt a pragmatic approach,
instead of insisting on conventional methods of proof.
10. The evidence in this case consists of the oral
testimony of PWs 1 and 2, RWs 1 and 2, and Exts.A1 to A12 and
B1 to B12.
Mat.Appeal Nos.811/2015, 812/2015, 817/2015
2025:KER:76912
11. The first question for consideration is whether the
appellants are liable to pay ₹14,91,000/- to the respondent
and ₹10,00,000/- as the market value of 50 sovereigns of gold
ornaments allegedly entrusted to them. The respondent
contended that, on the date of betrothal, i.e., on 22.04.2002,
her father entrusted ₹5,50,000/- to the second and third
appellants (the parents of the first appellant). She further
contended that ₹9,42,973/- was deposited in the joint account
of the respondent and the first appellant in the State Bank of
Travancore, Anchal Branch, on 05.10.2002, from which the first
appellant withdrew ₹9,41,000/-, thereby receiving ₹14,91,000/-
as her paternal share.
12. As regards the alleged patrimony, the dispute that
now survives is only with respect to ₹5,50,000/- allegedly
entrusted to the second and third appellants at the time of
betrothal, as the appellants have already paid ₹9,91,000/-
with interest (₹14,25,000/- in total) to the respondent
pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 17.08.2016 in
I.A. No.2770 of 2016. The said order was passed in view of the
admission made by RW1, the first appellant, that he had
Mat.Appeal Nos.811/2015, 812/2015, 817/2015
2025:KER:76912
received ₹9,41,000/- and was willing to return it to the
respondent. In their pleadings, the appellants admitted
receipt of ₹50,000/- at the time of betrothal. However,
according to the respondent, the second and third appellants
received ₹5,50,000/- on that date.
13. Hence, the only issue remaining is regarding the
alleged entrustment of ₹5,00,000/- more at the time of
betrothal. Ext.A5, the bank statement of the respondent's
father, shows withdrawal of ₹5,00,000/- on 19.04.2002 --three
days prior to the betrothal. The oral testimony of PWs 1 and
2, read along with Ext.A5, supports the respondent's version.
However, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that
PW2, the respondent's uncle, admitted during cross-examination
that he did not count the money allegedly handed to the
appellants. On a close reading of PW2's evidence, we find no
merit in that contention. PW2 clearly stated:
"പണണം Brief case ലലാകക്കി ജക്കിഷയുടടെ father 2-)0 എതൃകകക്കിയുടടെ കകയക്കിൽ ടകലാടുത
ടെക്കി Brief case 2-)0 എതൃകകക്കി കലാറക്കിൽ ടകലാണ്ടു വന്നു ടവചചലാ? (a) അറക്കിയുകയക്കില.
Brief case 2-)0 എതൃകകക്കിയുടടെ കയക്കിൽ ടകലാടുത. ബലാകക്കി അറക്കിയുകയക്കില, (A) എണക്കി
തക്കിട്ടടപ്പെടുതക്കി 19--ലാണം തതീയതക്കി bank-ൽ ചപലായക്കി 5 ലകണം രൂപ എടുത. 22/4/2022-ൽ 5
½ ലകണം രൂപ ടകലാടുത. 19/4/2002-ൽ ഞലാനണം ജക്കിഷയുടടെ father റണം ബലാങക്കിൽ ഇരുന്നു
Mat.Appeal Nos.811/2015, 812/2015, 817/2015
2025:KER:76912
കപസ count ടചെയ. 1000-ടന്റെയുണം 500-ടന്റെയുണം ചനലാട്ടുകളലായക്കിരുന്നു. എത്ര ടകട്ടുകൾ
ഉണലായക്കിരുന്നു എന്നു അറക്കിയക്കില. ടചെറക്കിയ briefcase ൽ ആകക്കിയലാണണ് ടകലാടുതതണ്.
19/4/2002-ൽ വതീട്ടക്കിൽ വനക്കിട്ടണ് എണക്കിയക്കില, 21/4/2002-ൽ വതീണ്ടുണം ഞലാൻ ജക്കിഷയുടടെ
വതീട്ടക്കിൽ ടചെന്നു. 5 ½ ലകണം അനണ് എണക്കി തക്കിട്ടടപ്പെടുതക്കി briefcase ൽ ടവച. 22/4/2002
എണക്കി തക്കിട്ടടപ്പെടുതക്കിയക്കില. വലാങക്കികന സമയതണ് രണലാണം എതക്കിർകകക്കി എണക്കിയക്കില"
It is thus evident that the money was counted in his presence
on two occasions and that his statement merely indicates that
the appellants did not count it at the time of receipt. The
cross-examination of both witnesses did not weaken their
version. Reading the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 along with
Ext.A5, we find no difficulty in accepting the respondent's
case that her father handed over ₹5,50,000/- at the time of
betrothal.
14. We now turn to the question regarding the quantity of
gold ornaments. The respondent claimed that she had 100
sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage and had
entrusted all of them to the appellants. The trial court,
however, concluded that she possessed only 80 sovereigns. The
appellants contended that they were unaware of the quantity of
ornaments worn by the respondent and that she retained all of
them. Upon analysing the pleadings, oral evidence, and Ext.A2
Mat.Appeal Nos.811/2015, 812/2015, 817/2015
2025:KER:76912
series of wedding photographs, we find no reason to disagree
with the trial court's finding that she must have adorned at
least 80 sovereigns of gold ornaments.
15. However, their case in the pleadings was that the
ornaments were kept in a private bank run by one Major George,
a relative of the respondent, and were later stolen. During
cross-examination, RW1 (the first appellant) admitted that he
had no direct knowledge of this, and RW2 (the second
appellant) could not offer any reliable evidence either, in
respect of the said explanation about entrustment. In
contrast, the respondent's case regarding entrustment remained
consistent, and her cross-examination did not yield anything
to discredit her version.
16. Upon analysing the totality of circumstances, we find
the respondent's version more probable. We, therefore, find no
irregularity in the trial court's conclusion that 50
sovereigns of gold ornaments were entrusted to the appellants.
No material has been placed before us to show that the trial
court's findings, after having observed the demeanor of
Mat.Appeal Nos.811/2015, 812/2015, 817/2015
2025:KER:76912
witnesses, are erroneous. We also note that the court awarded
only ₹10,00,000/- with interest as the market value of the
ornaments, in accordance with the claim made in the petition.
17. Coming to the claim for damages of ₹25,00,000/-, the
first appellant alleged that he incurred debts due to the
respondent's lavish lifestyle and lost his job abroad on
account of her conduct. However, no credible evidence was
produced to substantiate these assertions. Apart from the
interested testimony of RW1, there is nothing on record to
establish that he suffered any loss attributable to the
respondent's acts. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with
the trial court's finding rejecting this claim.
18. As regards the refusal to grant custody of the minor
daughter, we find no ground for interference at this distance
of time. The child will attain majority within one and a half
years. She has been brought up by the respondent since birth,
while the appellant has been given interim custody during
annual vacations. The assessment made by the learned Family
Judge is correct in the light of the evidence on record. In
Mat.Appeal Nos.811/2015, 812/2015, 817/2015
2025:KER:76912
these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to uphold the said
findings, observing, however, that it will be open to the
first appellant to approach the Family Court seeking interim
custody of the child for a few additional days during Onam and
Christmas vacations, if found suitable by the Family Court.
In the result, Mat.Appeal No.811/2015 is disposed of with
the above observations and Mat.Appeal Nos. 812/2015 and
817/2015 are dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
sv
Mat.Appeal Nos.811/2015, 812/2015, 817/2015
2025:KER:76912
APPENDIX OF MAT.APPEAL 812/2015
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit A10 BANK STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT NO. 61831
MAINTAINED WITH FEDERAL BANK LTD, ANCHAL
BRANCH
Exhibit A11 BANK STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT NO. 19289
MAINTAINED WITH FEDERAL BANK LTD, ANCHAL
BRANCH
