Kerala High Court
Omana Amma vs Rajendran Pillai on 16 September, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
Mat.Appeal No.473 and 474 of 2018
1
2025:KER:68141
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. 473 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22/02/2018 IN OP NO.1477 OF 2011 OF
FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
OMANA AMMA
AGED 54 YEARS, D/O PARAMESWARA KURUP,
FROM IRAMATHU VEEDU, SOORANADU,
NOW AT MANTAYIL VEEDU, KOICKAL MURI,
EAST KALLADA VILLAGE,KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
SRI.B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
RAJAN PILLAI @ RAJENDRAN PILLAI
AGED 59 YEARS, S/O RAMAN PILLAI,
PUTHUKULATHU VEEDU, KOICKAL MURI,
EAST KALLADA VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-691002.
BY ADV SRI.R.RAMADAS
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
11.09.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL.474/2018, THE COURT ON
16.09.2025 DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal No.473 and 474 of 2018
2
2025:KER:68141
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. 474 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.02.2018 IN OP(HMA) NO.1284 OF
2011 OF FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:
OMANA AMMA
AGED 54 YEARS, D/O. PARAMESWARA KURUP,
FROM IRAMATHU VEEDU,
SOORANADU, NOW MANTAYIL VEEDU,
KOICKAL MURI, EAST KALLADA VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
SRI.B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENTS:
1 RAJENDRAN PILLAI
AGED 59 YEARS, S/O RAMAN PILLAI,
PUTHUKULATHU VEEDU, KOICKAL MURI,
EAST KALLADA VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 002.
2 RAVEENDRAN PILLAI
AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. RAMAN PILLAI,
MANTAYIL VEEDU, KOICKAL MURI,
Mat.Appeal No.473 and 474 of 2018
3
2025:KER:68141
EAST KALLADA VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 002.
BY ADV SRI.R.RAMADAS
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
11.09.2025, ALONG WITH MAT.APPEAL.NO.473/2018, THE COURT ON
16.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal No.473 and 474 of 2018
4
2025:KER:68141
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat.Appeal Nos.473 & 474 OF 2018
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
These appeals are preferred by the wife against the
common order passed by the Family Court, Kollam, dissolving
the marriage between the appellant and the respondent on the
ground of adultery and dismissing her petition claiming
recovery of money and gold from the respondent-husband.
2. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent
was solemnised on 18.03.1986 as per Hindu rites and customs.
Two children were born in their wedlock. The respondent filed
a petition for divorce alleging that the appellant was
leading an adulterous life with his elder brother, who is the
second respondent in Mat. Appeal No. 474/2018. The appellant,
on the other hand, filed a petition claiming the recovery of
the gold ornaments and money allegedly entrusted with the
respondent/husband.
Mat.Appeal No.473 and 474 of 2018
2025:KER:68141
3. The factual contentions necessary for the disposal of
the present appeals are as follows: The respondent/husband
had been working abroad for a long period after the marriage.
During that time, the appellant allegedly started cohabiting
with the second respondent as if they were husband and wife.
At the time of their daughter's marriage, the appellant did
not even mention the respondent/husband's name in the
invitation card. In the birth certificates of the children,
the appellant had shown the name of the second respondent as
their father, it is alleged.
4. These allegations were stoutly denied by the
appellant. According to her, she had no such relationship
with the second respondent. In the original petition filed by
her, she alleged that the husband had misappropriated 20
sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to her and had further
obtained ₹10,00,000/- by selling her landed property. It was
also alleged that the husband received ₹25,000/- as pocket
money at the time of marriage. The respondent denied all such
allegations and contended that it was the appellant who had
misappropriated the entire amounts sent by him from abroad.
Mat.Appeal No.473 and 474 of 2018
2025:KER:68141
5. Both cases were jointly tried by the Family Court. On
the side of the respondent, PW1 to PW3 were examined and
Exts.A1 to A12 were marked. The appellant examined RW1 to RW4
and produced Exts.B1 to B13. After considering the oral and
documentary evidence, the trial court passed the impugned
order.
6. We have heard Sri. C. Rajendran, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, and Sri. R. Ramadas, the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent/husband.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously
contended that the trial court passed the impugned order
without appreciating the fact that the respondent did not
adduce sufficient evidence to establish the allegation of
adultery. It was further pointed out that the evidence of
PW1, being an interested testimony, was insufficient to
sustain the case, and that what remained in favour of the
respondent was only the oral testimony of PW2, who claimed to
have seen the appellant and the second respondent together at
various places. The learned counsel also took us through the
oral evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant. It was
Mat.Appeal No.473 and 474 of 2018
2025:KER:68141
further urged that, since the marriage took place in 1986,
the appellant could not be expected to produce documentary
evidence regarding the quantity of gold ornaments worn by her
at the time of marriage, and that such absence of documentary
proof should not be treated as a ground to reject her claim
for return of money and ornaments.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that the illicit relationship between the appellant
and the second respondent stood clearly established from the
fact that the second respondent's name was shown as the
father in the children's certificates. It was further
contended that both children were born while the respondent
was abroad. According to him, there is also no acceptable
evidence to substantiate the claim made by the appellant for
recovery of money and gold ornaments.
9. We have considered the rival submissions and have
carefully examined the records. One of the contentions
advanced by the respondent/husband in support of his
allegation of adultery is that the appellant and the second
respondent had been living together as husband and wife,
Mat.Appeal No.473 and 474 of 2018
2025:KER:68141
treating the children born to the appellant during the
subsistence of her marriage with the respondent as the
children of the second respondent. The respondent produced
Ext.A5, the birth certificate of Sreeraj. It was admitted by
RW1, the appellant, in cross-examination that in both the
Nativity Certificate and Birth Certificate of Sreeraj, her
son, the name of the father is shown as the second
respondent. Ext.A4 is the Nativity Certificate dated
23.05.2009, a relatively recent document, wherein again the
father's name is shown as the second respondent. This cannot
be treated as an isolated instance, as Ext.A6, the
appointment letter issued to Sreeraj by the Chief Personnel
Officer of the Government of India, also records the father's
name as Raveendran Pillai, the brother of the respondent.
10. The respondent further produced Ext.A7, an affidavit
purportedly signed by the second respondent on behalf of
Sreeraj, consenting to his participation in a rally conducted
by the Army Authority. Ext.A8 is a family photograph
depicting the appellant together with her children and the
second respondent, which, on its face, resembles a photograph
Mat.Appeal No.473 and 474 of 2018
2025:KER:68141
ordinarily taken by a husband and wife along with their
children. RW1 admitted during cross-examination that the
person shown in Ext.A8 is indeed the second respondent.
11. The trial court considered all these aspects while
concluding in favour of the respondent. The court also took
note of another circumstance while appreciating the evidence.
The case set up by the appellant and the second respondent
was that they had no connection as alleged by the
respondent/husband, and that they were residing separately in
different rented premises. According to the second
respondent, he was residing in a building owned by the NSS
Karayogam, Koyikkal. To prove this contention, RW2, the
Treasurer of the said NSS Karayogam, and RW3, the Taluk Union
Member of the NSS Karayogam, were examined. However, during
cross-examination, both witnesses admitted that there were no
documents to show that the second respondent had been
residing in their building. They also admitted that there is
nothing on record to show that he had paid any rent at any
time.
Mat.Appeal No.473 and 474 of 2018
2025:KER:68141
12. All the above circumstances make the contention
advanced by the respondent reasonably probable. The trial
court, having had the advantage of watching the demeanor of
the witnesses, also accepted the evidence of the respondent
in preference to the appellant and the second respondent. We
are not persuaded to take a different view and to interfere
with the findings of the trial court granting a decree of
divorce in favour of the respondent.
13. As regards the claim for recovery of gold and money,
the trial court found that the appellant failed to produce
reliable evidence to prove that she had any gold ornaments at
the time of marriage. The appellant admitted in cross-
examination that she had no income during the relevant
period. Though she contended that her gold ornaments were
sold by the respondent to finance his travel abroad, there is
no reliable evidence in support of the same. The appellant's
further case was that an amount of ₹10,00,000/- was received
by the respondent by selling her landed property. To
substantiate this, she produced Ext.B2 settlement deed dated
02.05.1977 and Ext.B3 sale deed dated 03.06.1993. As per
Mat.Appeal No.473 and 474 of 2018
2025:KER:68141
Ext.B2, the appellant received landed property described
therein. Under Ext.B3, the said property was sold to third
parties, but the sale consideration shown therein is only
₹15,000/-. The appellant has not produced any evidence to
show that the deed was undervalued or that the actual
consideration was ₹10,00,000/-. There is also no evidence
that the sale proceeds were received by the respondent. The
parents of the appellant were also executants in the sale
deed. In these circumstances, the appeal is only to be
dismissed.
In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
sv
