Kerala High Court
Noorjahan vs Raeez on 22 October, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
1
2025:KER:77973
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 30TH ASWINA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 1173 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.08.2017 IN OP NO.788 OF 2013 OF
FAMILY COURT, TIRUR
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 NOORJAHAN
AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.POOLAKKAL KOMADOYL MAMMIKUTTY,
KOMATHEL HOUSE, OLAVATTUR P.O.,
KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2 MOHAMMED RAIDH
AGED 6 YEARS (MINOR), S/O.NOORJAHAN,
KOMATHEL HOUSE, OLAVATTUR P.O.,
KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND GUARDIAN THE 1ST
APPELLANT.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL
SMT.V.A.HARITHA
SHRI.JEEVAN RAJEEV
SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE
SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR
SRI.S.SUDHEESH KUMAR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
RAEEZ
AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.KUTTILINGAL KOYALI MASTER,
KUTTILINGAL HOUSE, BIYYAM P.O., PONNANI TALUK,
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
2
2025:KER:77973
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679576.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC
DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY
SRI.JITHIN SAJI ISAAC
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
15.10.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL.1174/2017, 1215/2017,
R.P.(FC)NO.608/2017, 518/2017, THE COURT ON 22.10.2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
3
2025:KER:77973
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 30TH ASWINA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 1174 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.08.2017 IN OP NO.789 OF 2013 OF
FAMILY COURT, TIRUR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
NOORJAHAN
AGE 33 YEARS, D/O POOLAKKAL KOMADOYL MAMMIKUTTY,
KOMATHEL HOUSE, OLAVATTUR P.O., KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL
SMT.V.A.HARITHA
SHRI.JEEVAN RAJEEV
SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE
SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR
SMT.SANDHYA R.NAIR
SRI.S.SUDHEESH KUMAR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
RAEEZ
AGED 39 YEARS, S/O KUTTILINGAL KOYALI MASTER,
KUTTILINGAL HOUSE, BIYYAM P.O., PONNANI TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679576
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
4
2025:KER:77973
BY ADVS.
DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY
SRI.JITHIN SAJI ISAAC
SHRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
15.10.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL NO.1173/2017 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 22.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
5
2025:KER:77973
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 30TH ASWINA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 1215 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.08.2017 IN OP NO.788 OF 2013 OF
FAMILY COURT, TIRUR
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
RAEEZ
35 YEARS, S/O.KOTTILINGAL KOYALI MASTER, KOTTILINGAL
HOUSE, BIYYAM PO, PONNANI TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC
DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY
SRI.JITHIN SAJI ISAAC
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 NOORJAHAN
30 YEARS, D/O.POOLAKKAL KOMADOYIL MAMMIKUTTY,
OLAVATTUR P.O., KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 673 543.
2 MOHAMMED RAIDH
3 YEARS(MINOR), S/O.NOORJAHAN, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER
NOORJAHAN, OLAVATTUR P.O., KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 673 543
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
6
2025:KER:77973
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL
SHRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
SMT.V.A.HARITHA
SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE
SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
15.10.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL NO.1173/2017 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 22.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
7
2025:KER:77973
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 30TH ASWINA, 1947
RPFC NO. 518 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.08.2017 IN MC NO.501 OF 2014 OF
FAMILY COURT, TIRUR
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
RAEEZ
35 YEARS, S/O. KOTTILINGALKOYALI MASTER,
KOTTILINGAL HOUSE, BIYYAM P.O, PONNANI TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC
DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY
SRI.JITHIN SAJI ISAAC
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 NOORJAHAN
30 YEARS, D/O. POOLAKKAL KOMADOYIL MAMMIKUTTY,
OLAVATTUR P.O, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 673 543.
2 MOHAMMED RAIDH
3 YEARS (MINOR), S/O. NOORJAHAN, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER
NOORJAHAN, OLAVATTUR P.O KONDOTTY,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 543.
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
8
2025:KER:77973
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL
SHRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
SMT.V.A.HARITHA
SHRI.JEEVAN RAJEEV
SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE
SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
15.10.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL NO.1173/2017 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 22.10.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
9
2025:KER:77973
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 30TH ASWINA, 1947
RPFC NO. 608 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.08.2017 IN MC NO.501 OF 2014 OF
FAMILY COURT, TIRUR
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONERS:
1 NOORJAHAN
AGED 33 YEARS, D/O. POOLAKKAL KOMADOYL
MAMMIKUTTY,KOMATHEL HOUSE, OLAVATTUR P.O,
KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2 MOHAMMED RAIDH
AGED 6 YEARS(MINOR), S/O. NOORJAHAN, KOMATHEL HOUSE,
OLAVATTUR P.O, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.THE MINOR
IS REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND GUARDIAN THE 1ST
PETITIONER.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL
SMT.V.A.HARITHA
SHRI.JEEVAN RAJEEV
SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE
SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR
SMT.SANDHYA R.NAIR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
RAEEZ, AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. KUTTILINGAL KOYALI MASTER,KUTTILINGAL HOUSE,
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
10
2025:KER:77973
BIYYAM P.O, PONNANI TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679 576.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC
SRI.JITHIN SAJI ISAAC
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
15.10.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL NO.1173/2017 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 22.10.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
11
2025:KER:77973
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173, 1174, 1215 OF 2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518, 608 OF 2017
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
The wife filed petitions for divorce, recovery of money
and gold ornaments from the husband, and for past maintenance
to herself and her child, before the Family Court, Thiruvalla.
She also filed a maintenance case for future maintenance to
them. By a common order, the Family Court dismissed the
petition for recovery of gold and money and partly allowed the
petitions for past and future maintenance. The said order is
under challenge by both parties in the above appeals and
revision petitions.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall
hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in Mat. Appeal
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
2025:KER:77973
No.1174/2017. Their marriage was solemnised on 28.07.2008, and
a male child was born in that wedlock. The wife contended that
she was given 200 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash
amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- by her parents at the time of
marriage. Out of these, 100 sovereigns of gold ornaments were
purchased by her father for the marriage, and the remaining
ornaments had been procured by him since her childhood.
According to the petitioner, all the above gold ornaments and
the money given to her were utilised by the respondent and his
mother for their own use. She further claimed that her father
had given Rs.13,00,000/- to the respondent during the
subsistence of their marriage.
3. The above allegations were stoutly denied by the
respondent. He stated that he had placed a matrimonial
advertisement in Madhyamam daily, clearly expressing that he
was not desirous of receiving any dowry, and that the proposal
for the petitioner was received in response to that
advertisement. According to him, the petitioner had only 30
sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. He
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
2025:KER:77973
further claimed that he had given 10 sovereigns to the
petitioner as a gift, apart from 5 sovereigns as Mahr. The
respondent alleged that the petitioner retained all the
ornaments when she started living separately without any
justification, and it was under those circumstances that he
was constrained to file a petition for restitution of conjugal
rights, and the wife filed all the above cases only
thereafter, merely as a counterblast.
4. The wife filed a petition claiming past maintenance
for three years. She stated that due to continuous ill-
treatment by the respondent and his mother, she had been
residing at her parental home since 17.02.2010. Despite the
respondent working abroad in a Gulf country and earning
Rs.4,00,000/- per month, he had not provided any maintenance
to her from that date. It was further alleged that the husband
owned several businesses in India, including those dealing
with marble and hardware. According to the petitioner, she
requires a minimum of ₹16,000 per month for her own
maintenance and ₹8,000 per month for the maintenance of her
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
2025:KER:77973
child. Though she had a petty job, the income from it was
insufficient to meet her needs, including the maintenance of
her minor son. Based on these allegations, she claimed
Rs.5,40,000/- for herself and Rs.2,88,000/- for her child as
past maintenance for a period of three years at the rate of
Rs.15,000/- per month for herself and Rs.8,000/- per month for
the child. She also claimed future maintenance at the same
rate.
5. The above petitions were opposed by the respondent,
who alleged that the petitioner left his company without any
justifiable cause. He also contended that the petitioner was
employed at AWH College as a teacher and was earning
Rs.30,000/- per month. He further claimed that he had no job
or income and that he owned no business.
6. All the above cases were jointly tried by the Family
Court together with the petition filed by the husband for
restitution of conjugal rights and the petition for divorce
filed by the wife. The evidence in the case consisted of the
oral testimony of PW1, PW2, and RW1, and Exts. A1 to A5
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
2025:KER:77973
series. After considering the evidence on record, the Family
Court directed the respondent to pay past maintenance of
Rs.2,88,000/- to the wife and Rs.1,44,000/- to the minor child
for a period of three years, together with interest at 6%. The
Court further directed the respondent to pay future
maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/- and Rs.4,000/- per
month, respectively, from the date of the petition. The Court
dismissed the petition claiming return of money and gold
ornaments. It further granted a decree of dissolution of
marriage in favour of the petitioner on the ground of cruelty
and dismissed the petition filed by the husband for
restitution of conjugal rights. There is no challenge against
the order granting the decree of divorce and rejecting the
petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
7. The first question to be considered is whether the
petitioner is entitled to recover money and gold ornaments as
claimed in the petition. Though the petitioner claimed
recovery of Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondent, she could not
adduce convincing evidence to substantiate the said claim. On
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
2025:KER:77973
going through her testimony, it is evident that she was unable
to account for the source of the said money or to furnish
other evidence related to the alleged transactions. Perhaps
for this reason, during the course of hearing, no arguments
were advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner to
substantiate that claim. In the above factual situation, we
conclude that there is no reason to interfere with the finding
of the Family Court in this respect.
8. As regards the claim for recovery of gold ornaments,
though the petitioner was unable to substantiate her claim for
200 sovereigns of gold, she was able to produce Ext.A2--an
estimate dated 28.7.2007 from a shop named Rajadhani Gold,
Kondotty. She also produced Ext.A1 series photographs taken at
the time of her marriage. Ext.A2 estimate is issued in the
name of Mammi Kutty P.K., the father of the petitioner, and
shows the details of 747.71 grams (around 94 sovereigns) of
gold ornaments. It describes the particulars of four
necklaces, eight rings, two anklets, and fifteen bangles.
Though the genuineness of this document was challenged by the
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
2025:KER:77973
respondent on the ground that it was produced belatedly and
that it was only an estimate and not a bill, we find it
difficult to discard the said document, for the following
reasons. The respondent, when examined as RW1, admitted that
Ext.A1 series photographs were of the petitioner and they were
taken at the time of the marriage. He stated as follows:
"Ext A 1 photo ഞഞാനനും ഹരജജികഞാരജിയനും തമജിലുള്ള വജിവഞാഹസമയതത്ത് എടുത
ഫഫഞാഫടഞായഞാണത്ത്. കലലഞാണതജിനന്റെ അനത്ത് വവീടജിനന്റെ ഉമറതത്ത് നവചത്ത് എടുത photo
യഞാണത്ത്. 29. 7. 07 നഞാണത്ത് ഞങ്ങൾ തമജിലുള്ള കലലഞാണനും."
When Ext.A1 photograph is compared with the descriptions of
the ornaments mentioned in Ext.A2, we find that it
substantially tallies. Hence we are unable to discard Ext.A2,
which is a document apparently issued three days prior to the
date of marriage. It is true that it was not produced along
with the petitions and that it is titled as an 'estimate'.
However, the evidentiary value of that document, particularly
in a proceeding of this nature, cannot be questioned on such
technical grounds, especially when the facts stated therein
are substantially corroborated by Ext.A1 photographs. We are
also persuaded by another admission made by RW1 during cross-
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
2025:KER:77973
examination. He stated that:
"മമജിക്കുടജി P.K എനത്ത് പറയനതത്ത് ഹരജജികഞാരജിയനടെ വഞാപ്പയഞാണത്ത്. രഞാജധഞാനജി ജജ്വല്ലറജിയജിൽ
നജിനത്ത് ഹരജജികഞാരജിയനടെ വഞാപ്പ സജ്വർണനും വഞാങ്ങജിയതജിനന്റെ ബജില്ലജിനന കുറജിചത്ത് ഞഞാൻ
അഫനജ്വഷജിചജിടജില്ല."
Thus, it is evident that the respondent is not in a position
to challenge the genuineness of the transaction by which the
petitioner's father purchased gold ornaments from Rajadhani
Gold.
9. Though Ext.A3 invoice is also produced by the
petitioner, it is dated 04.07.2008, which is several months
subsequent to the marriage. According to the petitioner, she
had 200 sovereigns of gold ornaments as on the date of
marriage, and hence Ext.A3 does not advance her case. In
short, though there is no evidence to uphold her claim that
she was adorned with 200 sovereigns of gold ornaments, it is
only reasonable to infer from the above facts that she had
approximately 90 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of
her marriage.
10. The next aspect to be considered is whether she had
entrusted the said gold ornaments to the respondent. It is her
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
2025:KER:77973
contention that all her gold ornaments were misappropriated by
the respondent and his mother. The above contention was
challenged by the respondent, who stated that she had pledged
those gold ornaments in few co-operative banks. The respondent
specifically stated the names of those banks during cross-
examination. However, he failed to take any steps to call for
records from those banks. Moreover, his stand regarding the
possession of the gold ornaments is inconsistent as well. When
the petitioner was cross-examined, it was suggested to her by
the respondent that all her gold ornaments had been pledged by
her father at a bank at Bekkal. However, when the respondent
was cross-examined, he stated that he came to understand from
her that the gold ornaments had been pledged by her brother.
At the same time, he conceded that he did not enquire further
about such pledging. He further stated that her brother had
pledged the ornaments at co-operative banks in Ramanattukara,
Kondotty, and Pulikkal. He stated as follows:
"ടെജി photo യജിൽ കഞാണുന ധരജിചജിരജിക്കുന ആഭരണങ്ങൾ ഹരജജികഞാരജിയനടെ കയജിൽ
ഉണഞായജിരുനതഞാണത്ത്. അതഞാണത്ത് ഹർജജികഞാരജിയനും സഫഹഞാദരനനും പണയനും നവചതത്ത്. ഞഞാൻ
ഗൾഫജിൽ ഫപഞായജി മടെങ്ങജിവനതജിൽ ടെജി ആഭരണങ്ങൾ കണജില്ല. ഞഞാൻ ആഭരണനത പറജി
ഫചഞാദജിചതജിൽ അതത്ത് വവീടജിലുനണനഞാണത്ത് ഹർജജികഞാരജി പറഞ്ഞതത്ത്. സഫഹഞാദരൻ
പണയനപ്പടുതജി എനതത്ത് ഹരജജികഞാരജി പറഞ്ഞതഞാണത്ത്. അതജിനന്റെ വജിശദ വജിവരങ്ങനളെ പറജി
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
2025:KER:77973
ഞഞാൻ ഫചഞാദജിചജിടജില്ല. രഞാമനഞാട്ടുകരയനും, നകഞാഫണഞാടജിയജിലുനും, പുളെജികലുനും സഹകരണ
ബഞാങജിലഞാണത്ത് സഫഹഞാദരൻ ആഭരണങ്ങൾ പണയനും നവചതത്ത് എനഞാണത്ത് പറഞ്ഞതത്ത് , ഞഞാൻ
അവജിനടെ നജിനത്ത് വജിശദവജിവരങ്ങൾ ഫചഞാദജിചജിടജില്ല."
Further, it is relevant to note that the respondent raised an
apparently incorrect contention as to the quantity of gold
ornaments worn by the petitioner at the time of marriage.
According to him, it was only 30 sovereigns. At the same time,
he does not dispute Ext.A1 photographs during cross
examination, from which it is evident that the quantity of
gold ornaments worn by the petitioner is much more than 30
sovereigns.
11. We cannot overlook the fact that when a bride enters
her matrimonial home and begins residing with her husband, it
is both natural and inevitable that she would entrust her gold
ornaments for safe custody in that household. Interestingly,
the respondent has no case that the petitioner kept her gold
ornaments in any bank locker. Instead, he first contended that
they were used by her father, and later changed his version to
say that her brother had pledged them in certain banks, yet he
failed to adduce any evidence in that respect. All the above
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
2025:KER:77973
circumstances compel us to conclude that the petitioner had
entrusted a substantial portion of her gold ornaments with the
respondent. At the same time, for the reasons stated below, we
are not in a position to hold that she had entrusted all her
gold ornaments to him.
12. In determining the respondent's liability, it is
essential to consider certain other relevant circumstances
that bear upon the issue. Notably, even in her chief
affidavit, the petitioner herself stated that a chain and two
bangles were retained by her while entrusting the remaining
gold ornaments to the respondent and his mother. She did not,
however, specify the weight of those ornaments. Hence, it
would be reasonable to estimate them at around 15 sovereigns,
having regard to the apparent size of the rings and bangles
visible in the photographs. Furthermore, it is admitted by her
that she had been employed as a teacher in a college during
the relevant period. In such a situation, it is plausible that
she retained a few more gold ornaments for her regular use and
only the remaining were entrusted for safe custody. The
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
2025:KER:77973
petitioner also conceded that she had received 5 sovereigns of
gold as Mahr from the respondent. In addition, the respondent
asserted that he had presented her with 10 sovereigns of gold
at the time of marriage. Taking all these factors into
account, we are of the considered view that it would be
prudent to infer that the respondent is liable to return at
least 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments.
13. With regard to the past and future maintenance
awarded for the daughter, we have no doubt that the order
passed by the trial court is just and reasonable. It is not in
dispute that the child requires a substantial amount for her
education. The amount ordered is only Rs.4,000/- per month.
Even if the petitioner was employed at that time, her salary
would not be sufficient to meet all her needs as well as those
of the child.
14. However, the contention raised by the respondent
against the claim for past and future maintenance by the wife
is to be considered on a different footing. The learned
counsel appearing for the respondent forcefully submitted that
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
2025:KER:77973
the petitioner had, throughout, suppressed her employment and
income while prosecuting the petitions for past and future
maintenance. She stated before the trial court that she had
only a petty job. However, in the counter-affidavit filed by
her in RP(FC) No.518/2017 before this court, she disclosed
that she had temporary employment at AWH College of Education,
Cheruvannoor, and that she was drawing a monthly salary of
Rs.13,500/- until 2017. In the said counter-affidavit, she
further clarified that between the years 2017 and 2020, she
had no employment or income.
15. On a perusal of the records produced before this
Court, we find some force in the contention. In the said
counter-affidavit, the petitioner stated as follows:
"5. I was under the employment of AWH College of
Education, Cheruvannoor on temporary basis without any
permanency till 2017 for a meager salary of Rs.13,500/-.
Thereafter, I was not under their employment. I had no
employment or income thereafter till 2020. Mother had been
suffering from stroke and was under treatment in Baby
Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode. The averment in the Chief
Affidavit is a mistake committed by the lawyer in the
Court below. I had instructed my counsel that I was having
temporary employment in AWH College of Education,
Cheruvannoor for the last six months. However, by some
inadvertent mistake my counsel in the Family Court did not
add that I was temporarily employed in the said college.
However, during the cross examination I have stated that I
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
2025:KER:77973
was in AWH College of Education, Cheruvannoor as Co-
ordinator for the last six months and before that in Baby
Memorial Hospital. I was in Baby Memorial Hospital during
2008. My father was alive at that time but was not
employed. My brother was a freelance journalist and is at
present without employment. It can thus be seen that I
have not made any deliberate falsehood in the affidavit or
during the cross examination."
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the wife has filed a petition under the
provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on
Divorce) Act, 1986, claiming maintenance and fair and
reasonable provision, and that the same is still pending.
16. Nevertheless, by referring to the decision in
Rajnesh v. Neha and Another (AIR 2021 SC 569), the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the
petitioner has some income, what is relevant for the inquiry
under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or in the
inquiry for past maintenance is whether the income derived by
the wife was sufficient to meet all her needs, taking into
account the standard of living to which she was accustomed in
her matrimonial home.
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
2025:KER:77973
17. There could be no doubt about the above legal
principle. However, we find it difficult to uphold the
impugned orders in respect of past and future maintenance for
the wife as she had not properly disclosed the nature and
income of her employment during the trial. Since the
petitioner did not state these facts before the trial court,
the court was not in a position to assess all the relevant
factors while passing the maintenance orders. In such
circumstances, those orders are liable to be set aside by
allowing Mat.Appeal No.1215/2017 and R.P.(FC)No.518/2017 filed
by the husband, and the matter has to be remanded for fresh
disposal in light of the above facts, having due regard to all
relevant aspects. Mat. Appeal No.1173/2017 and R.P.(FC)
No.608/2017 filed by the wife for enhancement of past and
future maintenance are also to be disposed of accordingly.
18. While admitting the appeals and the revision
petition filed by the husband, this Court directed him to
deposit half of the amount awarded towards past maintenance,
and permitted the wife to withdraw the sum deposited. The
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
2025:KER:77973
husband was further directed to continue paying the monthly
maintenance as ordered by the trial court. (As per order dated
26.10.2017 in I.A. Nos. 3971 and 5548 of 2017 in Mat. Appeal
No. 1215 and R.P.(F.C.) No. 518 of 2017). Having regard to the
fact that the petitioner's admitted income during the relevant
period was only Rs.13,500/-, the wife is permitted to retain
the amount received by her pursuant to the deposit made by the
husband towards past maintenance, subject to the final
decision in the aforesaid cases. Likewise, we consider it
appropriate to direct the respondent to continue paying her
Rs.8,000/- per month as interim maintenance, subject to the
final outcome of the said cases.
19. In the result:
Mat.Appeal No.1174/2017 is allowed in part. The
appellant/wife is permitted to recover 60 sovereigns of
gold ornaments from the respondent, failing which she
will be entitled to recover the market value of those
gold ornaments as on the date of realisation from the
Mat.Appeal Nos.1173/2017, 1174/2017, 1215/2017 &
R.P.(FC)Nos.518/2017 & 608/2017
2025:KER:77973
respondent and his assets.
Mat.Appeal No.1215/2017 and R.P.(FC)No.518/2017 are
allowed and the impugned orders as relates to the wife
alone are set aside. The Family Court shall dispose of
O.P.No.788/2013 and M.C.No.501/2014 afresh after
affording an opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence
afresh. Parties shall appear before the Family Court on
10.11.2025.
Mat.Appeal No.1173/2017 and R.P.(FC)No.608/2017 are
disposed of in the light of the order passed in
Mat.Appeal No.1215/2017 and R.P.(FC)No.518/2017.
We are sure that the Family Court will expedite disposal
of the cases at the earliest, considering the period of time
elapsed since the institution of the original proceedings.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sv P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JUDGE
