[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Johny vs Sheela on 29 January, 2026
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2026:KER:7077
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 9TH MAGHA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 635 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.12.2013 IN OP NO.844 OF 2008 OF
FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD
-----
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 JOHNY
S/O. LASSER, PARANKINMAVUMMOODU VEEDU,
VELLOORKONAM MANCHA P.O., ARUVIKKARA VILLAGE.
2 RETNA BAI,
W/O. LASSER, AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT
PARANKINMAVUMMOODU VEEDU,
VELLOORKONAM MANCHA P.O., ARUVIKKARA VILLAGE.
BY ADV SRI.M.R.SARIN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SHEELA,
D/O. THAMARAKSHI, KIZHAKKURUMKA PUTHENVEEDU,
KANJIRAMPARA, PANAICODE P.O., UZHAMALACKAL VILLAGE,
NEDUMANGAD-695901.
2 TRINKLE,
D/O. SHEELA, AGED 6 YEARS, RESIDING AT KIZHAKKURUMKA
PUTHENVEEDU, KANJIRAMPARA, PANAICODE P.O.,
UZHAMALACKAL VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD-695901.
BY ADV SMT.KEERTHI SOLOMON
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
29.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:7077
SATHISH NINAN &
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat. Appeal No.635 of 2014
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2026
J U D G M E N T
Sathish Ninan, J.
The decree for gold and money, is under challenge by the
respondents in the original petition.
2. The original petition is filed by the wife and daughter,
against the husband/father and mother-in-law, claiming return of
gold ornaments and for marriage expenses for the daughter.
According to the petitioners case, at the time of marriage of the
first petitioner and first respondent, which was solemnized on
24.04.2006, the first petitioner was provided with 30 sovereigns
of gold ornaments. The ornaments were misappropriated by the
respondents. In the marital relationship, the second petitioner-
daughter was born. The parties fell apart. By way of the original
petition, return of the 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments and
marriage expenses of ₹ 10 lakhs is claimed.
2026:KER:7077
3. The Family Court decreed the original petition, as was
prayed for.
4. We have heard learned counsel on either side.
5. PW1 is the first petitioner and PW2 is her brother. They
deposed that the first petitioner was provided with 30 sovereigns
of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. According to the
respondents, at the time of marriage the first petitioner had
only approximately 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It is also
contended that the ornaments are with the first petitioner
herself. Along with the proof affidavit the petitioners produced
two photographs taken in connection with the marriage. The same
were not marked in evidence by the Family Court for the reason
that the negatives of the photographs were not produced. Section
14 of the Family Courts Act provides that strict rules of
evidence does not apply to the proceedings before the Family
Court. PW1 has admitted that among the ornaments worn by her at
the time of marriage, which were seen in the photographs, few
ornaments pointed out by her, are not gold ornaments. She claimed
that she was wearing 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments. There is
nothing to find against the genuineness of the photographs.
2026:KER:7077
Considering the admission of the respondents that the first
petitioner had approximately 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments, her
admission that some of the gold ornaments seen in the photographs
are not gold, we find that the petitioner was having
approximately 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of
marriage.
6. Though referring to the cross-examination of PW1 the
learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the petitioner
was unable to prove the source of money for the purchase and also
the factum of purchase of the gold ornaments, in the light of the
materials as noted above, including the respondents admission of
petitioner having had 10 sovereigns, the said argument has no
force.
7. The claim of the first petitioner that the gold ornaments
were entrusted with the respondents after the marriage is vouched
to by PW1. On going through the evidence we do not find any
reason to disbelieve her. It is quite common that on the bride
reaching the husband's house the ornaments which are not
necessary except for the daily wear are entrusted to the
husband's family for safe custody. In the normal course, the
2026:KER:7077
petitioner would have retained with her some of the ornaments for
her daily wear. Reckoning such quantity to be 5 sovereigns, we
conclude that the respondents are in possession of the remaining
15 sovereigns. The first petitioner is entitled to get return of
the same from the respondents.
8. With regard to the claim for marriage expenses of the
second petitioner, the amount of ₹ 10 lakhs awarded cannot be
said to be exorbitant. It is not attempted to be contended
otherwise. The father is bound to pay the marriage expenses of
the second petitioner.
Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part. The quantity of
the gold ornaments which the first petitioner is allowed to
realise from respondents, will stand re-fixed as, 15 sovereigns.
In all other respects the decree and judgment of the Family Court
will stand affirmed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy// P.S. To Judge
