Kerala High Court
Prasanth Kumar N.G vs Vidya V. Nair on 16 September, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
Mat.Appeal No.540 of 2018
1
2025:KER:68140
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 25TH BHADRA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 540 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.10.2017 IN OP NO.1255 OF
2014 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 PRASANTH KUMAR N.G.
AGED 35 YEARS,S/O GANGADHARAN NAIR,
NEDUMAKKAL HOUSE,CHEMPILAVU.P.O,
KOTTAYAM-686584.
2 LEELAMANIYAMMA
AGED 59 YEARS,W/O GANGADHARAN NAIR,
NEDUMAKKAL HOUSE,CHEMPILAVU.P.O,
KOTTAYAM-686584.
3 GANGADHARAN NAIR
AGED 66 YEARS, -DO- -DO-
BY ADVS.
SHRI.S.PRASANTH
SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL
SMT.V.A.HARITHA
SHRI.JEEVAN RAJEEV
SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE
SHRI.R.NANDAGOPAL
SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
VIDYA V. NAIR
AGED 29 YEARS,D/O.P.N.VENUGOPALAN NAIR,
Mat.Appeal No.540 of 2018
2
2025:KER:68140
TRAVANCORE CEMENTS QUARTERS, CN 6
NATTAKOM.P.O,KOTTAYAM-686013.
REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY
HODER,P.N.VENUGOPALAN NAIR,
TRAVANCORE CEMENTS QUARTERS,CN6,NATTAKOM.P.O,
KOTTAYAM
(P.O.A.IS ACCEPTED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.1984/15 DATED
17.12.2015)
BY ADVS.
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
12.09.2025, THE COURT ON 16.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal No.540 of 2018
3
2025:KER:68140
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat.Appeal No.540 of 2018
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
The husband and his relatives challenge the decree
passed by the Family Court, Kottayam, in favour of the wife
for the return of 39 ½ sovereigns of gold ornaments and
certain other movable articles, along with Rs.20,000/-.
2. The marriage was solemnised on 27.10.2011. The wife
contended that, at the time of her marriage, she was given
36 ½ sovereigns of gold ornaments as her family share.
Additionally, 3 sovereigns of gold ornaments were gifted to
the first appellant by the respondent's parents. It is her
case that soon after the marriage, she went to Mali for
employment and, at that time, entrusted her gold ornaments
to the first appellant in trust. The respondent alleges that
the entire ornaments were misappropriated by the appellants.
She therefore sought recovery of the gold ornaments and
2025:KER:68140
other articles entrusted to them at the time of marriage,
together with reimbursement of the amount allegedly spent by
her for taking the first appellant also to Mali.
3. The appellants denied these allegations. According
to them, the wife had only 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments
at the time of marriage, she had also adorned few additional
rolled gold ornaments, and that the entire ornaments are
still in her possession. They further contended that it was
the husband who bore the expenses for sending the respondent
to Mali. The respondent had borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- to
discharge her debts. The first appellant gave the thali
chain weighing 5 sovereigns, the thali itself weighing 2
grams, and a ring weighing ½ sovereign to the respondent,
which she retained. Accordingly, they filed a counterclaim
for recovery of the above items along with the amount
allegedly given by them to the respondent.
4. The respondent examined PW1 to PW8 and produced
Exts.A1 to A13 in support of her case. The appellants
examined RW1 and produced Exts.B1 to B3. Exts.X1 and X2 were
also marked in evidence. By the impugned judgment, the trial
court directed the appellants to return 39 ½ sovereigns of
2025:KER:68140
gold ornaments and Rs.20,000/- with 6% interest. The court
also directed return of a refrigerator and certain other
movable articles. The counterclaim was partly allowed by
directing the respondent to return the thali and the ring.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on both
sides.
6. To prove that she was adorned with the gold
ornaments as claimed, the respondent produced Ext.A9 series
and Ext.A12 bill issued by Kalyan Jewellers. She also
examined PW5, the Manager of Kalyan Jewellers, in support of
her claim. The said bill accounts for 32 ¾ sovereigns of
gold ornaments. Ext.A11, a photograph taken at the time of
marriage, also shows that the respondent was adorned with a
substantial quantity of gold ornaments. Though the
appellants contended that she had only 20 sovereigns of gold
and that the rest were merely rolled gold, the above
evidence, coupled with the oral testimony of PW1 and PW2,
clearly discredits that contention.
7. Moreover, the appellants admitted in their counter
that they had pledged 10 sovereigns of gold belonging to the
respondent. Additionally, when it was specifically pleaded
2025:KER:68140
by the respondent that 26 sovereigns of her ornaments were
pledged by the appellants at SBT, Kidangoor Branch, and the
Kidangoor Co-operative Bank for their purposes, it was
stoutly denied by the appellants. However, Exts.X1 and X2
establish that the second appellant, the mother of the first
appellant, pledged gold ornaments at those institutions and
obtained a substantial amount. Significantly, the appellants
offered no explanation in their counter regarding this
pledge in the name of the second appellant. All these
circumstances clearly establish that the appellants
misappropriated the respondent's ornaments.
8. Even though the bills produced from the jewellers
account for only 32 ¾ sovereigns, we find no reason to
disbelieve the consistent oral testimony of PW1 and PW2 that
the respondent possessed the remaining ornaments and that 3
sovereigns were gifted to the first appellant. The trial
court, having the advantage of watching the demeanor of the
witnesses, also accepted their testimony in preference to
RW1. At the same time, having regard to the fact that the
respondent, being a lady well placed in society, would in
all probability have retained some ornaments for her
2025:KER:68140
personal use, it would be just and proper to limit the
recovery to 33 ½ sovereigns. Similarly, we find no
justification for awarding Rs.20,000/- towards the expenses
allegedly incurred by the respondent for taking the first
appellant to Mali. There is no evidence regarding such
claim. Hence, the decree is liable to be modified to the
above extent. Nevertheless, we find no reason to interfere
with the remaining directions in the impugned judgment.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The
relief granted for return of 39 ½ sovereigns of gold
ornaments is modified to 33 ½ sovereigns. The direction to
return Rs.20,000/- with 6% interest is set aside. The
remaining part of the decree is upheld.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
sv
2025:KER:68140
APPENDIX OF MAT.APPEAL 540/2018
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT BY JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE- I ,ETTUMANOOR DATED
15.09.2017 INCALANDER NCASE NO882..2013
