Kerala High Court
Raheena vs N.M. Sirajudeen on 24 September, 2025
2025:KER:70712
Crl.R.P.No.167/2025
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 2ND ASWINA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 167 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2022 IN MC NO.55 OF 2018 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, CHERTHALA ARISING OUT
OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.10.2023 IN Crl.A NO.203 OF 2022 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - III, ALAPPUZHA /
III ADDITIONAL MACT ALAPPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
RAHEENA
AGED 48 YEARS
D/O. MUHAMMED KUNJU MUSALIYAR (LATE),SHIHAB MANZIL,
POOCHAKKAL P.O. PANAVALLY VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688526
BY ADV SHRI.C.G.RAJ KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & 2ND RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
1 N.M. SIRAJUDEEN
AGED 52 YEARS,S/O. N.A. MUHAMMED MUSALIYAR
(LATE),RAHMANIYA MANZIL VEEDU, CHANDIROOR P.O. - AROOR
VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA., PIN - 688537
2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ADARSH S.
SRI.V.N.SUBHANGAN
SRI SUDHEER.G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.09.2025, THE COURT ON 24.09.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:70712
Crl.R.P.No.167/2025
-:2:-
ORDER
This revision is directed against the judgment rendered by the
Additional Sessions Court-III, Alappuzha in Crl.A No.203/2022. The
aforesaid Crl.A was filed by the respondent in M.C No.55/2018 on the
files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Cherthala, a case under
the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
instituted by the wife against her former husband. As per order dated
29.07.2022 in M.C No.55/2018, the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II,
Cherthala directed the respondent in that M.C to return 25 sovereigns of
gold ornaments mentioned in A schedule, and the entire gold ornaments
mentioned in the B Schedule of the petition filed in that M.C, or its value
thereof to the petitioner within 30 days. The respondent was also
directed to return Rs.2,00,000/- and the articles mentioned in the C
schedule except a mobile phone, to the petitioner within 30 days. In
addition to the above reliefs, the respondent was directed to pay cost
Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner.
2. In the appeal filed by the respondent in that M.C, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Alappuzha restricted the entitlement of the
petitioner in that M.C for the gold ornaments to 25 sovereigns in total,
2025:KER:70712
and directed the respondent in that M.C to pay the value of 25
sovereigns of gold ornaments as on the date of petition with interest @
6% per annum. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also cut short the
amount ordered to be returned to Rs.1,00,000/- from Rs.2,00,000/-
which was originally ordered by the learned Magistrate. The direction for
return of the articles mentioned in the C schedule of the petition and for
the payment of costs were confirmed in the appeal. Aggrieved by the
above modifications made by the Appellate Court and also the order of
the Trial Court limiting the entitlement of gold ornaments in A schedule
to 25 sovereigns, the petitioner in the M.C has filed this revision petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the
learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Public
Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
4. The entitlement of the petitioner for the return of gold
ornaments from the first respondent was limited by the Trial Court to 25
sovereigns out of the A schedule of the petition, while permitting to get
back the entire 3 sovereigns of gold ornaments in the B schedule, stating
the reason that a computation of the quantum of the various gold
ornaments mentioned in the A schedule would reveal that the total
2025:KER:70712
quantity was only 25 sovereigns, and not 26½ sovereigns, as stated in
the petition. It is apparent that the total quantity of the gold ornaments
has been mistakenly mentioned by the petitioner as 26½ sovereigns in
the A schedule of the petition. Therefore, the Trial Court cannot be
found to be at fault for restricting the entitlement of the petitioner for
the return of gold ornaments in the A schedule to 25 sovereigns.
5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had limited the
entitlement of the petitioner for the return of gold ornaments from the
first respondent as 25 sovereigns in total by observing in paragraph
No.14 of the impugned judgment that the evidence showed the gift and
entrustment of 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments in total including those
mentioned in the B schedule, and hence the petitioner is not entitled to
have the quantity of gold ornaments exceeding 25 sovereigns. The
observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the above regard
is not in conformity with the evidence adduced by the petitioner. It could
be seen from the evidence on record that the petitioner had established
her claim that the first respondent was entrusted with 25 sovereigns of
gold which her parents had given to her at the time of marriage, and
also the 3 sovereigns of gold mentioned in the 'B' schedule, which her
2025:KER:70712
other relatives gifted at the time of marriage. Therefore, the finding of
the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the above factual aspect is
patently irregular.
6. It could be seen from the impugned judgment of the
Additional Sessions Court-III, Alappuzha, that the amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- permitted to be realised from the first respondent herein
was reduced to Rs.1,00,000/- without stating any convincing reasons.
The case records would reveal that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
entrusted with the first respondent at the time of marriage with the
petitioner, was not disputed by the first respondent. Thereafter, an
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was said to have been advanced to the first
respondent by the father of the petitioner for meeting the expenses for
seeking employment abroad. Out of the above amount of Rs.1,00,000/-,
the first respondent is said to have returned Rs.60,000/- to the
petitioner. However, the petitioner had adduced evidence before the Trial
Court that at the insistence of the first respondent, she had to avail a
loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Union Bank of India, Chandirur Branch,
and to hand over the same to the first respondent. According to the
petitioner, the aforesaid loan remained in arrears and that she had to
2025:KER:70712
remit Rs.60,000/- given by her brother to clear off the loan liability. The
aforesaid amount of Rs.60,000/-, along with the amount of Rs.40,000/-,
which the first respondent had not returned out of the amount borrowed
from her father for seeking employment abroad, would constitute the
total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
obtained by the first respondent at the time of his marriage with the
petitioner. The evidence adduced by the petitioner in the above regard,
had not been taken into account by the Appellate Court. Therefore,
there is no justification in reducing the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded
by the Trial Court to Rs.1,00,000/- by the Appellate Court.
7. The only remaining aspect to be dealt with in this revision is
the relevant date to be reckoned for ascertaining the value of the gold
ornaments, if the first respondent fails to return the total 28 sovereigns
of gold ornaments mentioned in the 'A' & 'B' schedules of the petition
filed before the Trial Court. The order passed by the Trial Court does not
specify the precise date to be reckoned for calculating the value of the
gold ornaments which the first respondent is bound to return to the
petitioner. In the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court, the relevant
2025:KER:70712
date for calculation of the value of gold ornaments is specified as the
date of petition.
8. The question as to what shall be the relevant period to be
considered while ascertaining the value of gold ornaments ordered to be
returned in a case instituted under the provisions of the Family Courts
Act, has been dealt with in detail by a Division Bench of this Court
Syamini S. Nair & Ors. v. Sreekanth R. [2022 (2) KLT 896]. After
discussing the relevant case laws rendered by this Court as well as the
Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been held in the aforesaid decision that while
ordering the recovery of gold ornaments and in alternative the realisation
of its market value, the relevant date for ascertaining the value of the
gold ornaments shall be the actual date of payment of the amount by
the opposite party to the aggrieved person. Therefore, in the case on
hand, the first respondent is bound to pay the value of the gold
ornaments as on the date when he makes actual payments, in the event
of his failure to return the gold ornaments as such. As a conclusion to
the aforesaid discussion, I find that the judgment rendered by the
Appellate Court is liable to be set aside, and the order of the Trial Court
2025:KER:70712
reinstated subject to the aforesaid modification as to the date to be
reckoned while deciding the value of gold ornaments.
In the result, the revision petition stands allowed as follows:-
(i)The judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Court-III,
Alappuzha, on 07.10.2023 in Crl.A.No.203/2022 is hereby set
aside.
(ii)The order dated 29.07.2022 of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-II, Cherthala, in M.C.No.55/2018 is reinstated
with the modification that the relevant date for ascertaining
the value of the gold ornaments mentioned in clause (1) of
that order shall be the date when the first respondent makes
actual payment of the amount as the value of gold ornaments.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr/DST
