SOUMYA S. Vs. SHAN P.G.( DIED )

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the petitioner in O.P No.381 of 2010 of Family Court, Thiruvalla against the judgment and decree dtd. 17/5/2014.

(2.) The appellant/wife filed the above O.P for recovery of patrimony. The Family Court allowed the O.P in part, permitting the appellant to realise Rs.50,000.00 with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation and also to get back the movables or its equivalent value Rs.36,000.00 from respondents 2 and 3 who are the brother and mother of her deceased husband. The 1st respondent-husband is no more and the lower court ordered that the case against him was abated, as no steps were taken by the appellant/petitioner to implead his legal heirs. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the appellant preferred this appeal alleging that she has to get back Rs.3.00 lakh being the patrimony amount, and Rs.65,000.00 deposited by her father in her bank account which was subsequently paid to the 1st respondent along with 92 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its equivalent value, and also the movables or its equivalent value Rs.68,000.00. According to her, respondents 1 to 3 and their assets, are to be held liable for her claim.

(3.) The 2nd respondent, who is the brother of her deceased husband, admitted receipt of Rs.50,000.00 from the father of the appellant to meet the marriage expenses. The 3 rd respondent, mother of respondents 1 and 2, was admitting entrustment of an Air Conditioner, Nilavilakku and dinner set worth Rs.36,000.00 in total. Accordingly, a decree was passed to that extent against respondents 2 and 3, and no decree was passed against the 1 st respondent or his assets finding that, case against him was abated. Now the short question to be considered is whether the case against the 1st respondent will abate for want of steps from the side of the appellant/petitioner to implead his legal heirs.