Kerala High Court
K.R.Sandeep vs Sreelakshmi A.G on 16 September, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
Mat.Appeal Nos.982 and 978 of 2015
1 2025:KER:68154
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. 978 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.06.2015 IN OP NO.667 OF 2013 OF
FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 K.R.SANDEEP, AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.KS. RAGHAVAN, KOCHERIYIL VEEDU,
CHATHANGATTU ROAD, PALARIVATTOM PO, ERNAKULAM
2 KS. RAGHAVAN, AGED 69 YEARS
KOCHERIYIL VEEDU, CHATHANGATTU ROAD,
PALARIVATTOM PO, ERNAKULAM
3 SAROJINI, AGED 62 YEARS
W/O.RAGHAVAN, KOCHERIYIL VEEDU,
CHATHANGATTU ROAD, PALARIVATTOM PO, ERNAKULAM
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA
SMT.SYAMA MOHAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
SREELAKSHMI A.G., AGED 27 YEARS
D/O.K.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN, AKKANATTU VEEDU,
PORUVAZHY, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE,
KUNNATHOOR TALUK, PIN 690520
BY ADV SRI.P.V.DILEEP
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.09.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.982/2015, THE COURT ON
16.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.982 and 978 of 2015
2 2025:KER:68154
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. 982 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.06.2015 IN OP NO.667 OF 2013 OF
FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 K.R.SANDEEP, AGED 32 YEARS
S/O S. RAGHAVAN, KOCHERIYIL VEEDU,
CHATHANGATTU ROAD, PALARIVATTOM PO, ERNAKULAM
2 K.S. RAGHAVAN AGED 69 YEARS,
KOCHERIYIL VEEDU, CHATHANGATTU ROAD,
PALARIVATTOM PO, ERNAKULAM
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA
SMT.SYAMA MOHAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
SREELAKSHMI A.G.
D/O K.K. GOPALAKRISHNAN, AKKANATTU VEEDU,
PORUVAZHY, SASTHAMCOTTA VILAGE,
KUNNATHOOR TALUK,-690 520
BY ADV SRI.P.V.DILEEP
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.09.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.978/2015, THE COURT ON
16.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal Nos.982 and 978 of 2015
3 2025:KER:68154
SATHISH NINAN & P.KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ
--------------------------------------
Mat.Appeal Nos.982 and 978 of 2015
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar.J
The husband challenges the common judgment passed by
the Family Court, Chavara, whereby the petitions filed by the
wife seeking a decree for compensation, maintenance, and
recovery of gold ornaments were allowed.
2.The marriage between the parties was solemnised on
07.05.2008 as per Hindu rites. They have no children.
3. The respondent in these appeals contended that she
was given 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of
marriage, which were misappropriated by the appellant. It was
further alleged that the marriage was solemnised by suppressing
the fact that the appellant had been previously married. On
this basis, the respondent sought recovery of the gold
ornaments, maintenance, and compensation of Rs.10 lakhs.
4. The appellant denied the above allegations.
According to him, the fact of his previous marriage had been
Mat.Appeal Nos.982 and 978 of 2015
4 2025:KER:68154
clearly disclosed at the very inception of the marriage
proposal. He further contended that he is a person with 65%
disability, and this fact had been specifically mentioned in
the advertisement published in the daily newspaper inviting
marriage proposals, which stated that an alliance was sought
only from persons capable of taking care of him. The
respondent, being a qualified nurse with experience in that
field, was fully aware of his disability and had also been
informed of his prior marriage. It was further contended that
the respondent had only less than 10 sovereigns of gold
ornaments at the time of marriage, and that the said ornaments
were never entrusted to the appellant or his parents but
remained in the custody of the respondent herself.
5. The respondent examined PWs 1 to 3 and produced
Exts.A1 to A8 in evidence. The appellant examined his father,
who represented him in the trial as RW1, and produced Exts.B1
to B8.
6. Along with the above cases, the Family Court also
jointly tried the petition filed by the respondent seeking
divorce on the ground of cruelty. By the impugned common
judgment, the Court allowed the respondent to recover 3 1⁄4
sovereigns of gold ornaments or, in the alternative,
Mat.Appeal Nos.982 and 978 of 2015
5 2025:KER:68154
Rs.32,250/- being their market value, together with 6%
interest. The Court further directed the appellant to pay
maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. The Court also
granted a decree for realisation of Rs.5,00,000/- with 6%
interest towards compensation, on the finding that the previous
marriage of the appellant had not been disclosed to the
respondent at the time of marriage. A decree of divorce was
also granted, which is not under challenge in these appeals.
7. We have heard Sri. Raman Kartha, the learned counsel
for the appellants, and Sri. P.V. Dileep, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
8. It is strenuously contended by the learned counsel
for the appellant that the decree is a nullity, as the
petitions were filed without complying with the procedure
contemplated under Rule 3 read with Rule 15 of Order XXXII of
the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further contended that there
is no factual basis for awarding compensation, since the
respondent was fully aware of the appellant's prior marriage.
It is also urged that the decree for return of gold ornaments
is unsustainable, as it is not supported by sufficient
evidence.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
Mat.Appeal Nos.982 and 978 of 2015
6 2025:KER:68154
respondent contended that there are no grounds to interfere
with the impugned common judgment, as the findings are based on
clear and cogent evidence.
10. We do not find any merit in the contention advanced
by the learned counsel for the appellant that the decree is
invalid on account of non-compliance with Rule 3 read with Rule
15 of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of the settled law
that where a disabled person has been duly represented by a
competent person during trial, the decree cannot be assailed
merely for want of a formal order under Rule 3 (Tresa Xavier v.
Mary Simon [2022 (2) KLT 459]; Johny v. Oriental Kuries Ltd.
[2003 (1) KLT 881]). What is required in law is substantial
compliance with the said provisions, namely, that the disabled
person is effectively represented by a competent person. In the
present case, the appellant was represented by his father as
his natural guardian, and the counter statement was verified
and signed by the father in that capacity. The Court also
treated him as the guardian of the appellant, though no formal
order under Rule 3 was passed. Nobody has a case that the
father did not bonafide contest the case or that any prejudice
was caused to the interest of the appellant due to the said
lapse.
Mat.Appeal Nos.982 and 978 of 2015
7 2025:KER:68154
11. However, we find merit in the submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant that there are no grounds for
awarding compensation. The compensation was claimed by the
respondent on the ground that she had not been informed of the
appellant's prior marriage. A perusal of the evidence of PW1,
the respondent, and that of RW1, the appellant's father, makes
it clear that the respondent was well aware of the said fact.
The appellant specifically pleaded that, when he published an
advertisement on 26.11.2006 inviting marriage proposals, the
respondent's father contacted him within a week. At that time,
the appellant's father informed him that they were proceeding
with another proposal. Later, the appellant's father intimated
the respondent's father that the marriage would be conducted in
January 2007. Subsequently, in June 2007, when the appellant
along with his mother visited Chakkulathukavu temple, they met
the respondent and her mother there, and it was then informed
that his previous marriage had failed. These facts were as such
set out in the chief affidavit of RW1. Though he was cross-
examined at length, the above statement remained not seriously
challenged.
12. Apart from this, during cross-examination, PW1, the
respondent, admitted most of the above aspects. She deposed as
Mat.Appeal Nos.982 and 978 of 2015
8 2025:KER:68154
follows:
"എന വവ ഹ പത പരസ ത ല യ യ ര ന. പത പരസ
നൽക യ 2006-ല ണ എന ത ന ന . 26.11.2006-ൽ മ ഭമ
പത ത ല ണ പരസ വന . ന ങള പ വ ണ പരസ കണ ?
അ . എന പ വ യ ത$ പ ലക ഷ&ൻ ന യര ണ. ഒന
എ ർകക യ വ+ട ക ര മ യ ത- ൺ വഴ ബന 2ട , എന
പ വ ഒന എ ർകക യ മ വമ യ ണ സ സ ര ച .
അ ന ത4ഷ ബതയ -ത6റ അയച ക ത . +യ ഓർമയ ല.
ബതയ -ത6റ ഞ ൻ കണ ര ന . ബതയ -ത6റ ക ട യ ന ത4ഷ
എന പ വ സതഹ ദരൻ ത4+ജ ത ഒന എ ർകക യ
വ+ട ൽ തപ യ ര ന . അത2 ൾ ഒന എ ർകക ക മ റ ര
വ വ ഹ തല ചന ഉ ണന പ ഞ . അ ന ത4ഷ വ ള ക മന
പ ഞ . പ ന+ ഒന വ ള ച ല. സന+പ ന ആദ വ വ ഹ
ന ന യ പ ഞ . Further adds: വ വ ഹ ന ന യ ഞങൾ
അ ഞ ല."
She also admitted in cross-examination that she and her family
members used to visit Chakkulathukavu temple every month. This
being the evidence on record, we find no credibility in the
contention of the respondent that she was unaware of the
previous marriage.
13. The above facts were not taken into consideration
by the trial court while awarding compensation on the ground
that the appellant had suppressed his previous marriage. In the
circumstances, the said finding is unsustainable and is liable
to be set aside.
14. As regards the decree for recovery of gold
ornaments, though it was contended that there is no sufficient
proof, we do not find any ground to interfere with that part of
the judgment, since the oral testimony of PW1 clearly supports
this. We also take note that the Family Court restricted the
Mat.Appeal Nos.982 and 978 of 2015
9 2025:KER:68154
decree to 3¼ sovereigns based on the admission made by RW1
during cross examination, though the respondent had claimed 35½
sovereigns. Similarly, there is no reason to interfere with the
decree for maintenance, since the amount awarded is only
Rs.1,000/- per month.
In the result, Mat.appeal No. 978 of 2015 is allowed
and the decree for compensation is set aside. Mat Appeal. No.
982 of 2015 is dismissed upholding the decree in OP No.715 of
2013.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.KRISHNA KUMAR, JUDGE
dlk/12.09
