K. M. BASHEERUDHEEN Vs. P. K. KHADEEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parties in both these matters are common. These cases arise from the proceedings before the Family Court, Vatakara instituted by the respondent/wife. Respondent herein filed OP NO.278/2014 for return of gold ornaments and money. She along with her child filed MC No.97/2014 for maintenance.

(2.) Op No.278/2014 was partly allowed. Appellant Sri.K.M.Basheerudheen was directed to return 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value. Maintenance case was allowed directing Basheerudheen to pay '4,000/- each to the respondent and his daughter.

(3.) The case of the respondent Smt.P.K.Khadeeja is that, at the time of marriage, she was adorned with 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Admittedly, her marriage was a second marriage. The marriage was solemnized on 2/10/2004. According to her, she was brutally assaulted and was driven out from the house of Basheerudheen in the month of March, 2012. She filed OP for return of gold ornaments as well as for dissolution of marriage before the Family Court in the year 2014. Divorce has been granted pursuant to her petition for divorce under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. There was a dispute regarding the quantum of gold ornaments adorned by her. Evidence only consists of the oral evidence besides Ext.A1, an estimate prepared by one Bhaskaran, a goldsmith. Bhaskaran was not examined. The Family Court believed the oral testimony of Khadeeja and her father, who was examined as PW2 by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in Treasa Bency v. Preceline George , 2013 3 KerLT 414 . The Family Court found that Basheerudheen constructed a house of which the basement was constructed at the time of marriage and in the absence of any documents to show that Basheerudheen had his own income to construct such a house and therefore, it has to be assumed that, it was misappropriating the gold ornaments adorned by Khadeeja at the time of marriage, the house was constructed.