JUMAILA BEEVI Vs. A. NISSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/wife filed Mat.Appeal No.181 of 2013 against the dismissal of O.P No.944 of 2005 on the file of Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, and she along with her three children filed R.P (F.C) No.41 of 2019, challenging the order in M.C No.248 of 2010 dtd. 10/5/2017. In both cases, the respondent is her husband.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the appeal could be stated as follows: The appellant and the respondent are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnised on 11/3/1990 as per Muslim rites and custom. Three children were born in their lawful wedlock. At the time of marriage, the appellant was given 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and 42 cents of land from her family, apart from a gold chain weighing 2 sovereigns and a gold ring weighing 1 sovereign given to the respondent/ husband. By selling away her 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments, the husband purchased plaint 'A' schedule property having 25 cents in his name though it was agreed to be purchased in her name. Only later she could realise that the document was registered in the name of the respondent. The respondent constructed a house in plaint 'A' schedule property expending his own money. But the movables in that house were gifted to the appellant from her family. The respondent ill-treated the appellant demanding more dowry. Her brothers purchased six cents of land in her name, but the respondent compelled her to sell away that property for constructing shop rooms in 'A' schedule property. She sold away that property for Rs.2,40,000.00 and that amount was utilised for constructing five shop rooms in 'A' schedule property. In April 2005, the appellant and her children were ousted from the house in the 'A' schedule property, and thereafter he contracted a second marriage. The appellant and her children were abandoned by the respondent and he failed even to pay their maintenance. So, she filed O.P No.944 of 2005, for declaring her title over 'A' schedule property and to get back 'B' schedule movables kept in the house in 'A' schedule. She along with her three children filed M.C No.185 of 2005 for maintenance from the respondent.

(3.) The respondent/husband filed counter affidavit denying the claim of the appellant/wife. According to him, the appellant was leading a wayward life and she misused and misappropriated the amounts he had given to her, while he was working abroad. No property was purchased by selling away her gold ornaments, and no property was purchased in her name by her brothers. The house as well as the shop rooms in 'A' schedule were constructed by the respondent using his own hard earned money. Regarding her maintenance claim also, the respondent disowned his liability as he was even doubting the paternity of the children.