DIRSANA Vs. ABDUL MAJEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is filed by the petitioners in OP No.284/05 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram. The respondent had married the daughter of the 3rd appellant and in that wedlock, appellant numbers 1 and 2 were born. It is the admitted case that the respondent's wife, the mother of appellants 1 and 2 had an unnatural death and that in that connection criminal case for offence under Section 498(A) of IPC was charge sheeted against the respondent and he was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-.

(2.) IN OP No.284/05, the children and their maternal grand father sought return of Rs.30,000/- alleged to have been given to the respondent as presentation and Rs.1,75,000/- being the value of 40 sovereigns of gold given to the deceased bride again at the time of her marriage with the respondent. By the impugned judgment, the Family court declined both the prayers and it is aggrieved by the said judgment, the appeal is filed.

(3.) THE fact that 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments were made was deposed by PW2, the goldsmith. However, the Family Court has chosen to brush aside his evidence for the reason that he is a close neighbour of PW1. In our view, if the evidence of a witness is otherwise confidence inspiring, such evidence cannot be ignored even if the witness is a neighbour or a near relation of a party to the case. Therefore, we are unable to accept the logic of the Family Court in disregarding the evidence of PW2. In sum and substance therefore, from the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, it was proved before the Family Court that at the time of marriage, 30 sovereigns of gold were given to the bride and that after the delivery of the second child in 2002, another 10 sovereigns covered by A1 was also given. PW1 has admitted that at the time of her death, deceased was wearing 10 sovereigns of gold. This therefore means that the respondent is liable to account for the 30 sovereigns of gold that the deceased had.