[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Georgie G.K vs Soosan J.V on 18 February, 2026
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
Mat.Appeal No.176 of 2015
1
2026:KER:14096
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 29TH MAGHA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 176 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.09.2014 IN OP NO.1235 OF 2009
OF FAMILY COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
GEORGIE G.K., AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.G.GOVINDAN, RESIDING AT BIJU BHAVAN, CHOWARA (PO),
KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, BALARAMAPURAM (VIA),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.G.P.SHINOD
SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR
SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN
SRI.MANU V.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
SOOSAN J.V.
D/O.VASANTHAKUMARI, RESIDING AT J.V.COTTAGE,
PAYARUMMOODU, MULLOOR (PO), VIZHINJAM VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SRI.D.SREENATH
SHRI.N.D.DIPINGHOSH
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
11.02.2026, THE COURT ON 18.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal No.176 of 2015
2
2026:KER:14096
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat.Appeal No.176 OF 2015
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
The respondent in this appeal filed a petition before the
Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking return of gold
ornaments, realisation of money, and a declaration of her
right, title, and possession over the petition schedule
property, against the appellant, her husband. By the judgment
impugned in this appeal, the court allowed her claim for
return of gold ornaments and granted the relief of
declaration.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the original
petition. The petitioner and the respondent were married on
25.01.2006. The petitioner alleges that she had adorned 55
sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage. She
further contends that, on 21.11.2005, her father executed a
2026:KER:14096
settlement deed in the joint names of the petitioner and the
respondent, as demanded by the respondent. The deed was
executed by her father to secure her future, and the
respondent's name was included therein as a trustee. According
to the petitioner, the respondent obtained 40 sovereigns of
her gold ornaments and misappropriated the same. On these
allegations, she filed the petition seeking the aforesaid
reliefs.
3. The respondent denied the allegations in toto.
According to him, the petitioner had adorned only 15
sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of the marriage, and
those ornaments were never entrusted to him. He further
contended that when the petitioner's parents expressed their
inability to arrange sufficient funds for the marriage, he
paid them ₹8,00,000/-, and consequently, the property was
transferred in their joint names.
4. The evidence in the case consists of the oral
testimony of PW1 and PW2 and CPW1 and CPW2, along with
documentary evidence marked as Exts. A1 to A5 and B1 and B2.
2026:KER:14096
5. Upon evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, the
trial court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to
recover 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the respondent.
The court also declared the petitioner's absolute title over
the petition schedule property.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on both
sides.
7. The first point that arises for determination is
whether the petitioner is entitled to recover 40 sovereigns of
gold ornaments from the respondent.
8. As noted earlier, the respondent has categorically
denied that the petitioner possessed 55 sovereigns of gold
ornaments or that he had obtained 40 sovereigns therefrom.
Therefore, the petitioner was required to establish her case
with reasonable certainty. Although she produced materials to
show that she had adorned substantial quantity of gold
ornaments at the time of her marriage, we are unable to accept
2026:KER:14096
her claim for recovery of 40 sovereigns, in view of certain
material admissions made during her cross-examination.
9. She deposed that out of her gold ornaments, 25
sovereigns were taken by the respondent, and the balance was
returned to her when she was driven out of the matrimonial
home. She further stated that when she later returned to
resume cohabitation with the respondent, he again obtained 15
sovereigns from her. Her exact version is as follows:
"എനന്റെ സസ്വർണ്ണതത്തിൽ 25 പവനനനോളളം അവർ എടുതത്തിടട്ട് ബനോകത്തി സസ്വർണ്ണളം
എനത്തികട്ട് തനത്തിടട്ട് എനന വഴത്തിയത്തിനലെറത്തിഞത്തിടട്ട് നപനോയത്തി. രണനോളം തവണ ഞനോൻ
എതൃകകത്തിയുനടെ കൂനടെ തനോമസത്തികനോൻ നപനോയനപനോൾ വവീണളം പ്രശനളം തുടെങത്തി.
വവീണളം 15 പവൻ സസ്വർണ്ണളം കകകലെനോകത്തി."
She further departed from this version during subsequent
cross-examination and stated as follows:
"ഞനോൻ മൂന്നു മനോസളം ഗർഭത്തിണത്തിയനോയത്തിരുനനപനോൾ എനന്റെ സസ്വർണ്ണളം എലനോളം
കകകലെനോകത്തി. എതൃകകത്തിയുളം ടെത്തിയനോനന്റെ അമ്മയുളം നചേർനട്ട് എനന നറനോഡത്തിൽ
ഇറകത്തി വത്തിടത്തിട്ടുനപനോയത്തി. നറനോഡത്തിൽ ഇറകത്തി വത്തിടനപനോൾ നത്തിങളുനടെ കകവശളം എത
പവനന്റെ ഉരുപടെത്തി ഉണനോയത്തിരുന്നു (Q) ഒന്നുളം ഇലനോയത്തിരുന്നു. എലനോളം വനോങത്തിനയടുത
നശഷമനോണട്ട് നറനോഡത്തിൽ ഇറകത്തി വത്തിടതട്ട്. ഈ പറഞ പ്രകനോരളം എലനോ സസ്വർണ്ണവളം
എനനോണട്ട് വനോങത്തിയതട്ട് (Q) തവീയതത്തികൾ ഓർമ്മയത്തില. (Ans) നറനോഡത്തിൽ
ഇറകത്തിവത്തിടതത്തിനട്ട് എത ദത്തിവസളം മുമനോണട്ട് എനട്ട് പറയനോൻ കഴത്തിയുനമനോ (Q)
അനനോണട്ട് സസ്വർണ്ണളം വനോങത്തിയതട്ട് (Ans)."
2026:KER:14096
None of the above statements are consistent with her
pleadings. In the original petition, she had stated as
follows:
"5. Counter petitioner and his family members showed
very much love at the time of marriage. With the
influence of the (counter petitioner's) father and
mother counter petitioner may handed over the mother
in law for keeping under her custody. Thus the
petitioner handed over 40 sovereigns of gold
ornaments to the counter petitioner and he himself
given it to his parents. Thus the counter petitioner
and his parents collect 40 sovereigns of the
petitioner in which 25 sovereigns were sold out and
used the wealth for their lavish life."
10. The petitioner had further pleaded that when she
commenced residence with the respondent at Punnaninnavila
Veedu, he forcibly took 15 sovereigns of her gold ornaments
and sold them. However, she has no case in the pleadings that
any portion of the gold ornaments was returned to her when she
was sent back to her parental home. It is significant that
even after she adopted such a contradictory stand during
cross-examination, no attempt was made to clarify the
discrepancies by re-examining her.
2026:KER:14096
11. In the above circumstances, we are unable to accept
her claim for recovery of 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The
trial court failed to advert to these material inconsistencies
while rendering its judgment. To that extent, the decree
passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside.
12. However, with respect to the petitioner's claim over
the immovable property, the respondent does not have even an
arguable case. The records reveal that the settlement deed was
executed two months prior to the marriage. Although the
respondent contended that it was executed upon payment of
₹8,00,000/- as consideration, he failed to adduce any evidence
in support of that assertion. The contention runs contrary to
the recitals contained in the settlement deed itself.
Moreover, it fails to explain why a settlement deed--rather
than a sale deed--was executed, and that too, jointly in favour
of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner's
contention that the deed was executed by her father to secure
her future, with the respondent's name included only as a
trustee, appears to be highly probable. The findings of the
trial court in that regard do not warrant interference.
2026:KER:14096
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The
direction in the decree for return of gold ornaments is set
aside. The remaining part of the decree is upheld. No costs.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
sv
