[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Joby vs Shinimol on 4 February, 2026
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2026:KER:9847
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 15TH MAGHA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 650 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.01.2016 IN OP NO.183 OF 2011 OF
FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
-----
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SHINIMOL,
AGED 39 YEARS, D/O SHANMUGHAN,
RESIDING AT MUDUMPIL LANE, GANGA NAGAR, MANACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 009.
2 ASWIN LAL,
AGED 10 YEARS, S/O JOBY RESIDING AT MUDUMPIL LANE,
GANGA NAGAR, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 009,
REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER SHINIMOL.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA
SRI.LEEJOY MATHEW.V.
SMT.SINDHU MATHEW
SHRI.SIMSAR UL HAQ K.Y
SMT.ATHIRA C.K.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 JOBY,
AGED 42 YEARS, S/O GOPALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT
KANNAMATHU VEEDU, ULIYACOVIL CHERRY, ULIYAKOVIL P.O,
KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN 691 019.
2026:KER:9847
MAT.APPEAL NO. 650 OF 2016 -2-
2 SUSEELA
AGED 63 YEARS, W/O GOPALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT
KANNAMATHU VEEDU, ULIYACOVIL CHERRY, ULIYAKOVIL P.O,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 691 019.
3 JASMIN,
D/O GOPALAKRISHNAN RESIDING AT KANNAMATHU VEEDU,
ULIYACOVIL CHERRY, ULIYAKOVIL P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN 691 019.
BY ADV SRI.C.R.JAYAKUMAR
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
04.02.2026, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.734/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:9847
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 15TH MAGHA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 734 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.01.2016 IN OP NO.183 OF 2011 OF
FAMILY COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
-----
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:
JOBY,
AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, KANNAMATHU VEEDU,
ULIYAKOVIL CHERRY, ULIYAKOVIL P.O.,KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.R.JAYAKUMAR
SRI.NOBEL RAJU
SMT.P.K.VINAYA
RESPONDENTS/1ST & 2ND PETITIONERS AND 2ND & 3RD RESPONDENTS:
1 SHINIMOL,
AGED 40 YEARS, D/O. SHANMUGHAN, RESIDING AT MUDUMPIL
LANE, GANGA NAGAR, MANACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 009.
2 ASWINILAL,
AGED 11 YEARS, S/O. SHINIMOL, RESIDING AT MUDUMPIL
LANE, GANGA NAGAR, MANACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER SHINIMOL, PIN-695 009.
2026:KER:9847
MAT.APPEAL NO. 734 OF 2016 -2-
3 SUSEELA,
AGED 64 YEARS, W/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, KANNAMATHU VEEDU,
ULIYAKOVIL CHERRY, ULIYAKOVIL P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 019.
4 JASMIN,
D/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, KANNAMATHU VEEDU,
ULIYAKOVIL CHERRY, ULIYAKOVIL P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 019.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA
SRI.LEEJOY MATHEW.V.
SMT.SINDHU MATHEW
SHRI.SIMSAR UL HAQ K.Y
SMT.ATHIRA C.K.
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
04.02.2026, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.650/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:9847
SATHISH NINAN &
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat. Appeal Nos.734 of 2016 &
650 of 2016
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2026
J U D G M E N T
Sathish Ninan, J.
The original petition filed by the wife and daughter against
the husband and in-laws, seeking the reliefs for return of gold
and money, declaring a conveyance to be sham, and for
maintenance, was decreed for maintenance alone. Challenging the
refusal of the reliefs, the wife and daughter filed Mat. Appeal
No.650 of 2016. Challenging the quantum of maintenance ordered,
the husband is in appeal in Mat. Appeal No.734/2016.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on
15.12.2003. In the wedlock, the second petitioner was born on
04.11.2004. They have been living separately since the year 2005.
The petitioner's claim is that, at the time of marriage she was
provided with 151 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹ 1 lakh.
Claim is made for return of the same. She has also claimed
Mat. Appeal Nos.734 of 2016 &
650 of 2016
2026:KER:9847
maintenance at the rate of ₹ 10,000/- for herself and ₹ 5,000/-
for the second petitioner child.
3. The respondent contended that the first petitioner had
only 101 sovereigns of gold ornaments and that the ornaments are
with the petitioner herself. The claim regarding payment of ₹ 1
lakh and maintenance were denied.
4. The Family Court held that the quantity of gold ornaments
that the petitioner had was only 101 sovereigns and that the same
are in her possession. The allegation of misappropriation of
money was also negatived. Taking note of the maintenance ordered
in the proceedings under Domestic Violence Act and in MC
proceedings, the court awarded ₹ 1,500/- each to the petitioners.
5. We have heard learned counsel on either side.
6. With regard to the claim of gold, Ext.A2 certificate from
the SNDP Sakha Yogam and Ext.B3 written statement filed by the
first petitioner in OP 390/2005, clinches the issue regarding
quantum. Therein the petitioner has admitted the quantity of gold
ornaments as 101 sovereigns. The Family Court was right in
holding the quantity accordingly.
Mat. Appeal Nos.734 of 2016 &
650 of 2016
2026:KER:9847
7. The first petitioner, while being examined before the
Family Court, Kollam in OP 390/2005 and in OP 584/2005,
categorically admitted that the gold and fixed deposit belonging
to her were returned to her. The relevant admissions read thus,
"ടടി കകാശശ് 05/08/2005-ൽ നടിങ്ങളളുടട പപേരടിപലേയശ്യശ് ഒഴടിഞഞ്ഞുമകാറടിയ പരഖകളളുളും FD
രസസീതഞ്ഞുകളളുളും സസ്വർണകാഭരണങ്ങളളുളും വനടിതകാടസലടിൽ വചശ് നടിങ്ങൾയശ്
കകമകാറടിയടിരഞ്ഞുനഞ്ഞുപലകാ ? A:- അടത. ഞങ്ങൾ സസ്വർണവഞ്ഞുളും കകാശഞ്ഞുളും ഒനഞ്ഞുളും ആവശശ്യടപ്പെടടില.
ഭർതകാവശ് തടിരടിചശ് ഏൽപ്പെടിയഞ്ഞുകയകായടിരഞ്ഞുനഞ്ഞു. FD പപേകകാരമഞ്ഞുള്ള തഞ്ഞുക ഞകാൻ പേടിൻവലേടിചളു
...... .......FD-യഞ്ഞുളും ബകായടിയഞ്ഞുള്ള സസ്വർണവഞ്ഞുളും എടന്റെ കകയടിൽ തനഞ്ഞു.
പേടിതകാവടിടന ഏൽപ്പെടിചളു
ഞങ്ങൾ ആവശശ്യടപ്പെടകാടത ഞങ്ങളളുടട കകയടിൽ അടടിപചൽപ്പെടിയഞ്ഞുകയകാണഞ്ഞുണകായതശ്."
In the light of the categoric admission, the claim for gold and
money was rightly negatived by the Family Court.
8. The claim for gold and money having been negatived, the
further contention that the conveyance of the property belonging
to the husband in the name of the third respondent is sham and
intended to defeat the petitioner's claim, does not arise for
consideration at all.
9. Now coming to the claim for maintenance, it is not in
dispute that there is already an award of maintenance in two
other proceedings, one under Domestic Violence Act and the other
Mat. Appeal Nos.734 of 2016 &
650 of 2016
2026:KER:9847
under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The family
Court noticed that though the petitioners claim that the husband
is the owner of the Super Market, no evidence is adduced to prove
the same. Though the husband relied on Ext.B8 salary slip to
contend that he is only the sales man in the shop, the court
found that the said argument cannot be relied upon. It is
thereafter that the court proceeded to award an amount of
₹ 1,500/- each per month to the petitioners as maintenance. The
judgment impugned was passed on January, 2016. We find it
appropriate to give the parties an opportunity to adduce further
evidence before the Family Court with regard to the claim for
maintenance. Till the claim is adjudicated, the husband shall pay
maintenance in accordance with the orders now in force.
In the result, the appeals are allowed in part. The claim
for maintenance alone is reopened and remanded back to the Family
Court to enable the petitioners and first respondent to adduce
further evidence upon the claim. Till such adjudication is made
Mat. Appeal Nos.734 of 2016 &
650 of 2016
2026:KER:9847
or till further orders are passed by the Family Court, the first
respondent shall continue to pay the maintenance as is now
ordered. Parties to appear before the Family Court on 24.02.2026.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. To Judge
