P.P.RAJESH Vs. DEEPTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, "the Act") against the judgment of the Family Court, Ernakulam in O.P.No.683 of 2012 dated 15.10.2016.

(2.) The first appellant and the respondent are divorced spouses. Their marriage took place on 26.01.2014 as per the Hindu rites. Two children were born out of the wedlock. The respondent instituted O.P.No.2425 of 2011 before the court below against the first appellant and obtained a decree of dissolution of marriage which has become final. The second appellant is the mother of the first appellant. The original petition (O.P.No.683 of 2012) was instituted by the respondent against the appellants for return of gold ornaments, household articles, cash as well as for damages. It is the case of the respondent that at the time of marriage her parents had given her 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs. 3,00,000/-in cash which was later on taken away and misappropriated by the appellants. It is further alleged that immediately after the marriage, the respondent had brought furniture and household articles worth Rs. 60,000/-from her house to the house of the appellants and in the year 2007, the father of the respondent had given furniture and household articles worth Rs. 40,000/-to the first appellant when they shifted to a rented house. According to the respondent, even after divorce, those furniture and household articles worth Rs. 1,00,000/-were with the appellants. It is also alleged that in view of the cruel conduct and harassment by the appellants, the respondent was put to much physical harm, mental pain and sufferings. The original petition has been filed for return of gold ornaments, household articles and money mentioned above as well as for damages. The total claim made was for Rs. 25,96,730/-.

(3.) In the objection statement filed by the appellants, they denied the case set up by the respondent that gold ornaments, furniture and household articles and cash were entrusted to them and they misappropriated it. It is contended that only 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to the respondent at the time of marriage and those were kept by the respondent herself in safe custody at her house. The allegation in the original petition that the respondent is entitled to damages for the alleged cruelty meted out to her by the appellants has also been denied. The appellants sought for the dismissal of the original petition.