BIJU GOPALAN Vs. K S SIVASANKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the respondents 1 to 3 in O.P. 478/2009 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla. Respondents 1 and 2 herein were the petitioners in that O.P., which was filed by them under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act for recovery of an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- towards the value of gold ornaments and value of movables. The case of the petitioners in the O.P. is briefly as follows: Petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents of deceased O.S. Bindu. The first respondent married Bindu on 3.11.2002 at Lakshmi Auditorium near the residence of the petitioners, as per the custom of Ezhava community. The said Bindu was working as an L.D. Clerk in the Revenue Department and the first respondent was working as a teacher. There are no issues out of the wedlock. Respondents 2 and 3 are the father and mother of the first respondent respectively. In connection with the marriage, Bindu was given 408 gms. of gold ornaments, out of which 280 grams were entrusted to the 2nd respondent on the direction of the first respondent. 80 gms. Of gold ornaments were entrusted to the third respondent on 10.12.2002 as directed by the first respondent which was sold or pledged, and the amount was used by the respondents. The ornaments were taken by the respondents on the date of death of Bindu. On 9.9.2003 Bindu was murdered and was hanged in the bathroom and it was alleged that she committed suicide. A crime is registered by the police under Sections 306, 304B and 498A read with Section 34 IPC and is pending before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta as S.C. 345/04. At the time of marriage, apart from the above ornaments, presentation items worth Rs. 25,000/- were also given to deceased Bindu which are now in the custody of the respondents. Certain certificates described in the petition schedule are also in the possession of the respondents. On the death of Bindu, petitioners approached the SNDP Yogam office bearers and the Pathanamthitta Union for a mediation to get back the above articles or its value. But, so far it is not returned. A notice was also sent on 22.12.2008 but it was refused. Hence, the claim for Rs. 7,65,000/- as value of ornaments and value of movables scheduled in the petition and for return of certificates.

(2.) Respondents filed objection, wherein they contended as follows: The petition is not maintainable. The petitioners have no right to file such a petition. The marriage is admitted. But the claim that she had 408 grams of gold ornaments is denied. The alleged entrustment of ornaments to the respondents is also denied. The allegation that the ornaments of deceased Bindu was appropriated by the respondents on her date of death is also denied. The allegation that it was a murder is also denied. The further allegation that deceased Bindu was assaulted and was treated cruelly by the respondents while residing with them is also denied. The crime registered and the consequent trial before the Additional Sessions Court as S.C. 345/04 ended in acquittal finding that the allegations against the respondents in connection with the death of Bindu is false. The further allegation that the deceased was given movables worth Rs. 25,000/- in connection with the marriage is also denied. They are not in possession of any of the certificates of the deceased. The notice sent by the petitioners never reached the respondents. They are not liable to pay any amount as claimed in the petition or to return any articles as claimed.

(3.) Before the Family Court, on the side of the petitioners, PW 1 to PW 4 were examined and Exts. A1 to A3 were marked. On the side of the respondents, the first respondent was examined as CPW 1 and Exts. B1 to B7 were marked. The Family Court, on considering the evidence on record allowed the Original Petition in part directing the respondents to pay Rs. 6,12,000/- to the petitioners towards value of 51 sovereigns of gold ornaments within one month, failing which the petitioners will be entitled to recover it with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of decree till date of realization. The petitioners were also allowed to get their proportionate costs in the petition. Against that judgment and decree dated 16.8.2010, respondents 1 to 3 filed this appeal.