Kerala High Court
Mala M. Ealiyas vs Christy John on 29 September, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:72690
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 7TH ASWINA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 217 OF 2018
AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 28.02.2017 IN OP NO.335 OF
2015 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MALA M.EALIYAS
AGED 38 YEARS, D/O. LATE EALIYAS, MAILADUMPARAYIL
MANJAYIL VEETTIL, PEECHI VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR
TALUK, PIN - 680 653.
BY ADV SRI.JAGAN ABRAHAM M.GEORGE
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
CHRISTY JOHN
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. LATE JOHN, PERMANENT
RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: PALLIPURATH VEETTIL, PEECHI
VILLAGE, DESOM P.O, VELLANIKKARA, PIN - 680 654,
THRISSUR TALUK, PRESENT RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS AT
QUARTERS NO.37-B, K.A.U STAFF QUARTERS, P.O,
VELLANIKKARA, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 654.
BY ADVS.SMT.R.RAJITHA
SHRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
29.09.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.142/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:72690
Mat.Appeal Nos.217 and 142 of 2018
& R.P.(FC) No.74 of 2018
-: 2 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 7TH ASWINA,
1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 142 OF 2018
AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 28.02.2017 IN OP NO.495
OF 2015 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
MALA.M.EALIYAS
AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.LATE ELIYAS,
MAILADUMPARAYIL MANJAYIL VEETTIL, PEECHI
VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN-680653.
BY ADV SRI.JAGAN ABRAHAM M.GEORGE
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
CHRISTY JOHN
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.LATE JOHN, PERMANENT
RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: PALLIPURATH VEETTIL,
PEECHI VILLAGE, DESOM, P.O.VELLANIKKARA, PIN-
680654, THRISSUR TALUK, PRESENT RESIDENTIAL
ADDRESS AT QUARTERS NO.37-B, K.A.U.STAFF
QUARTERS, P.O.VELLANIKKARA, MANNUTHY,
2025:KER:72690
Mat.Appeal Nos.217 and 142 of 2018
& R.P.(FC) No.74 of 2018
-: 3 :-
THRISSUR, PIN-680654.
BY ADVS.
SMT.R.RAJITHA
SHRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
29.09.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.217/2018, 74/2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:72690
Mat.Appeal Nos.217 and 142 of 2018
& R.P.(FC) No.74 of 2018
-: 4 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 7TH ASWINA,
1947
RPFC NO. 74 OF 2018
AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 28.02.2017 IN MC NO.92
OF 2015 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/1ST PETITIONER:
MALA M. EALIYAS
AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.LATE
EALIYAS,MAILADUMPARAYIL MANJAYIL
VEETTIL,PEECHI VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK,
PIN-680653
BY ADVS.
SRI.JAGAN ABRAHAM M.GEORGE
SMT.PRIYANKA GOPI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT AND 2ND PETITIONER:
1 CHRISTY JOHN
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.LATE JOHN, PERMANENT
RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: PALLIPURATH
VEETTIL,PEECHI VILLAGE, DESOM P.O.,
VELLANIKKARA, PIN-680654,THRISSUR
2025:KER:72690
Mat.Appeal Nos.217 and 142 of 2018
& R.P.(FC) No.74 of 2018
-: 5 :-
TALUK.PRESENT RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS AT QUARTERS
NO.37-B, K.A.U STAFF QUARTERS,
P.O.VELLANIKKARA, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR,PIN-680
654
2 MINOR ALOK P. CHRISTRY
AGED 6 YEARS, DOB 24/05/2010REPRESENTED BY
MOTHER MALA M.EALIYAS
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL
SMT.R.RAJITHA
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 29.09.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.142/2018
AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:72690
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat.Appeal Nos.217 and 142 of 2018
and
R.P.(FC) No.74 of 2018
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
Sathish Ninan, J.
Mat.Appeal No.217 of 2018 arises from O.P.No.335 of 2015.
The original petition was filed by the wife against the husband,
seeking return of gold and money. It was dismissed by the Family
Court. Mat.Appeal No.142 of 2018 arises from O.P.No.495 of 2015.
The original petition was filed by the husband against the wife,
seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The original
petition was decreed. R.P.(FC) No.74 of 2018 arises from
M.C.No.92 of 2015, whereunder the claim for maintenance for the
wife was disallowed. Challenging the common order, the wife is
before this Court.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on
21.06.1999. Two sons were born in the wedlock. According to the
wife, at the time of marriage, her parents had provided her with
2025:KER:72690
Mat.Appeal Nos.217 and 142 of 2018
70 sovereigns of gold ornaments and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.
The entire gold and money were entrusted with the husband. It is
alleged that she was ill-treated by the husband and that the
husband was having illicit connection with another lady. She
seeks for return of gold ornaments and money, and also
maintenance.
3. The husband denied the allegations levelled against
him. The claim of the wife that at the time of marriage she had
70 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.2,00,000/- and the same
were entrusted to him, were denied. The alleged extra marital
relationship was also denied. According to him, the wife wanted a
residential building to be put up in the property that was given
to her from her family. The husband was not interested in the
same. Offended by that, she was behaving rudely against him, and
on 19.02.2015, she left his company. It was contended that he is
ready to maintain the wife and the children. He sought for
restitution of conjugal rights.
4. The Family Court found that there is no evidence to
prove that the wife had 70 sovereigns of gold ornaments or
2025:KER:72690
Mat.Appeal Nos.217 and 142 of 2018
Rs.2,00,000/- at the time of marriage. The court accepted the
husband's contention that whatever ornaments the wife had, were
taken by her when she left the matrimonial home. It was held that
the wife was residing separately without any valid reason and
accordingly, granted a decree for restitution of conjugal rights
and declined maintenance for her. The claim for maintenance for
the one child who is with her, was allowed at the rate of
Rs.5,000/- per month.
5. We have heard Shri.Jagan Abraham George, the learned
counsel on behalf of the wife and Shri.Santhosh P. Pothuval, the
learned counsel on behalf of the husband.
6. Though the claim of the wife that, at the time of
marriage, she had 70 sovereigns of gold ornaments, was denied by
the husband, he has admitted that at the time of marriage, she
had 10 to 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Though the wife
produced Ext.B2 estimate with regard to the purchase of the gold
ornaments, the same was not accepted by the Family Court for the
reason that it was produced only just before the commencement of
the evidence and that Ext.B2 did not contain the name of the shop
2025:KER:72690
Mat.Appeal Nos.217 and 142 of 2018
or any verifiable details.
7. Going by Ext.B2 estimate, the quantity of gold
ornaments purchased is approximately 40 sovereigns. Ext.B1 series
are the photographs taken at the time of marriage. A perusal of
the same suggests that she was wearing such quantity of gold
ornaments. The husband, as PW1 in his cross-examination, admitted
the genuineness of Ext.B1 series of photographs. He also admitted
that, at the time of marriage, the wife was wearing the ornaments
as seen in the photographs. The relevant deposition reads thus;
"വ വ ഹത നഎത
. ട ർകക
വ സ ർണ ഭരണങൾധര
വ ഹഫ ചഫരന
കള ണഎന
ഇഫ ! ൾക ണMarked
ചത as Ext. B1 Series. Ext.B1 series വ വ ഹസമയത
എടതഫ ഫ സ ണ
. ആഫ ഫ കള ൽഎത
. ഉഫ ർകക
*ശ,എത
ആഭരണങൾധര ച ടണ
ആഭരണങൾഇ ടനണ റ യ ."
ല
Curiously, the husband did not produce any wedding photographs,
which would also have given indication regarding the gold worn by
the wife at the time of marriage. There is inconsistency in the
claim of the wife for 70 sovereigns of gold ornaments when she
claimed in the petition that, out of 70 sovereigns, 30 sovereigns
were made through a goldsmith and the remaining was purchased,
and in evidence she deposed that only 5 gold bangles were made
2025:KER:72690
Mat.Appeal Nos.217 and 142 of 2018
through goldsmith and the remaining ornaments were purchased from
a jewellery shop. We have already noticed that the evidence
probabilises that the petitioner was having only 40 sovereigns of
gold ornaments at the time of marriage. Hence, the claim for
balance 30 sovereigns does not have relevance. The marriage of
the parties took place 16 years prior to the petition and it is
difficult to expect other evidence regarding the same. On the
materials on record, we find that the wife was having 40
sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage.
8. It is the definite case of the wife that, immediately
after the marriage, the entire ornaments were entrusted with the
husband and the same were kept locked in an almirah. The case of
the husband is that the wife had only few gold ornaments and the
same were with her. Having found that the wife was having
approximately 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments, it is highly
improbable that she would be keeping it with her while she was
residing with the husband at his house. It is only probable that
her ornaments, except those retained for daily wear, would have
been entrusted with the husband for safe custody. Though in the
2025:KER:72690
Mat.Appeal Nos.217 and 142 of 2018
petition the wife has a case that the ornaments were never given
back to her, in her cross-examination she admitted that during
some functions, some ornaments were given to her.
9. Ext.A2 series are the photographs produced by the
husband to confront the wife while she was examined as RW1. She
has admitted that the photographs were taken in the year 2009 at
the time of the marriage of the husband's brother. A perusal of
the said photographs when compared with Ext.B1 series photographs
clearly reveals that she was wearing only a very few quantity of
gold ornaments(approximately one-fourth). The fact that even at
the time of marriage of the husband's brother, she was wearing
only such a small quantity of gold ornaments when compared to the
gold ornaments worn at the time of her marriage indicates that
she did not have the entire ornaments with her. From her
statement in cross-examination that she was given 3 chains and 2
or 3 bangles for wearing at the time of the marriage of husband's
brother, and that she retained the ornaments, when considered
along with the quantity of gold ornaments seen in Ext.A2 series,
probabilises that she was having with her approximately 15
2025:KER:72690
Mat.Appeal Nos.217 and 142 of 2018
sovereigns of ornaments. The claim of the wife that the remaining
quantity of the gold ornaments are with the husband, is probable.
In the normal circumstances, while in the husband's house, it is
very improbable that the wife would be keeping in her custody
such large quantity of 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments. In the
above circumstances we deem it appropriate to a decree for return
of the remaining 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments. We are unable
to concur with the Family Court in its finding that the wife has
failed to prove the quantity of gold ornaments that she had at
the time of marriage and also that she left the matrimonial home
with whatever ornaments she had.
10. Though the wife had a claim that at the time of
marriage she was provided with a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-,
admittedly, there is no evidence to prove the same. Though the
claim is that her uncle had entrusted the money with the
husband's brother, her uncle, though admittedly available, was
not examined. In the absence of any evidence, the Family Court
was justified in having declined the claim.
11. Now, coming to the claim by the husband for
2025:KER:72690
Mat.Appeal Nos.217 and 142 of 2018
restitution of conjugal rights, it is the allegation of the wife
that the husband was having illicit relationship with a staff
working along with him. The learned counsel for the wife
submitted that, pending these appeals, there was an original
petition before the Family Court, Ottappalam, as O.P.No.245 of
2018, filed for dissolution of marriage by one Sudheesh against
his wife who is employed at the very same place where the husband
is working and that the husband was impleaded as the 2 nd
respondent therein on the allegation of adultery. The learned
counsel submitted that, though the certified copy of the original
petition was produced, sine there were some defects in the
application the same could not be placed on record. Admittedly,
the wife has filed an original petition against the husband,
before the Family Court, Thrissur as O.P No.1015 of 2017 seeking
divorce, alleging adultery, and the same is pending. The claim
for maintenance was declined consequent to the decree for
restitution of conjugal rights. Considering the above facts, we
are of the opinion that the original petition for restitution of
conjugal rights and maintenance is to be considered along with
2025:KER:72690
Mat.Appeal Nos.217 and 142 of 2018
the original petition for divorce and the parties could be
permitted to adduce evidence in the proceedings.
In the result, Mat.Appeal No.217 of 2018 is allowed and the
judgment in O.P.No.335 of 2015 is set aside and a decree is
passed directing the husband to return 25 sovereigns of gold
ornaments or its value at the time of payment, within three
months from today, on failure of which the wife is allowed to
realise the value of the ornaments at the rate prevailing at the
time of recovery, from the husband and his assets. Mat.Appeal
No.142 of 2018 and R.P.(FC) No.74 of 2018 are allowed setting
aside the judgment in O.P.No.495 of 2015 and M.C.No.92 of 2015
and the matters are remanded back to the Family Court to be tried
along with O.P. No.1015 of 2017. No costs.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
yd
