Kerala High Court
L.Archana vs Guru Vipinkumar Murthy @ Vipinkumar on 16 September, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
Mat Appeal No.1104 of 2018
1
2025:KER:68518
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. 1104 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.08.2017 IN OP NO.315 OF 2014
OF FAMILY COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
L.ARCHANA
AGED 34 YEARS
D/O. LALITHA, THIRUVATHAY,
ADOTTUKONAM, MACHEL P.O.,
MALAYINKIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADVS.
SRI.G.SUDHEER
SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN (H-308)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
1 GURU VIPINKUMAR MURTHY @ VIPINKUMAR
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. V.G.MOORTHY,
JEON MURTHY BHAVAN,
THOZUKKAL, NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 121.
2 V.G.MURTHY
AGED 71 YEARS
JEON MURTHY BHAVAN,
THOZUKKAL, NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 121
Mat Appeal No.1104 of 2018
2
2025:KER:68518
3 SREEMATHI AMMA
AGED 68 YEARS
W/O. V.G. MURTHY, THOZUKKAL, NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 121
BY ADV SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
12.09.2025, THE COURT ON 16.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat Appeal No.1104 of 2018
3
2025:KER:68518
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat.Appeal No.1104 of 2018
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
The appellant is the wife of the first respondent. She
filed a petition seeking recovery of 65 sovereigns of gold
ornaments and ₹3,00,000/- from her husband and his parents,
the other respondents. The trial court, by the judgment
impugned in this appeal, dismissed the petition.
2. The first respondent remained ex parte throughout.
The second and third respondents contested the matter. While
cross-examining the appellant, the contesting respondents
introduced in evidence Ext.B2 affidavit filed by her in M.C.
No.320/2012, a case initiated by her against her husband. In
paragraph 11 of the said affidavit, she stated that
"Accordingly, the respondent had returned the entire gold
ornaments to me." She further averred in Ext.B2 that her
husband later cunningly obtained back the said ornaments in
2025:KER:68518
order to secure a new visa abroad. The trial court dismissed
the petition on the ground that, even though the appellant
had stated in Ext.B2 that the ornaments were returned to
her, she did not amend the petition to contend that the
ornaments were again entrusted to her husband, and therefore
the case set up by her appeared false. The court also
dismissed the claim for return of money on the ground of
insufficiency of evidence.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned counsel for the second and third
respondents.
4. The main grievance urged on behalf of the appellant
is that, even assuming the trial court was justified in
disbelieving her case regarding the ornaments, there was no
justification for rejecting the claim for recovery of money
from the first respondent, who remained ex parte. It is
pointed out that the trial court did not assign any reason
for discarding the unchallenged testimony of PW1, the
appellant, that a sum of ₹3,00,000/- had been entrusted with
the first respondent at the time of marriage. The learned
counsel further submitted that the appellant ought to have
2025:KER:68518
been given an opportunity to amend the petition so as to
plead the circumstances under which she was compelled to re-
entrust the ornaments with the first respondent.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second and
third respondents contended that, from the very inception,
their consistent stand was that they had no role in the
disputes between the husband and wife, and hence they were
not necessary parties to the proceedings. It was further
argued that even during the trial, no material was brought
on record to connect them with the alleged transactions
between the appellant and her husband.
6. We have perused the records with reference to the
rival contentions. We find merit in the submission advanced
on behalf of the appellant. The trial court has not stated
any reason for rejecting the oral evidence of PW1 regarding
the claim for money. In her chief affidavit, PW1
categorically stated that a sum of ₹3,00,000/- was entrusted
with the first respondent at the time of marriage. Though
this was challenged in cross-examination by the contesting
respondents, nothing substantial was elicited to discredit
her testimony. The first respondent remained ex parte
2025:KER:68518
throughout, and no witness was examined on the side of the
contesting respondents. In such circumstances, the impugned
judgment, to the extent it rejects the claim against the
first respondent, is liable to be interfered with. Apart
from this, we are also of the view that it is only just and
proper to afford the appellant an opportunity to amend the
petition so as to specifically plead the circumstances under
which the ornaments were allegedly given back to the
husband.
7. At the same time, we concur with the findings of
the trial court to the extent it absolves the second and
third respondents of any liability, since there is no
material to connect them with the alleged transactions. We
find no materials in the testimony of the appellant to
fasten liability upon them. The case is, therefore, liable
to be remanded for fresh disposal only against the first
respondent.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The
impugned judgment is set aside as against the first
respondent, and the matter is remanded for fresh disposal.
O.P. No.315/2014 is restored to the file of the Family
2025:KER:68518
Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant shall appear before
the trial court on 30.09.2025. The trial court shall issue
fresh summons to the first respondent. If the appellant
takes steps to amend the original petition within fifteen
days from the date of appearance, the trial court shall
allow such amendment and proceed with the trial
expeditiously. It is clarified that the dismissal of the
original petition as against respondents 2 and 3 stands
affirmed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
sv
