VARGHESE @ JOLLY Vs. JOSEPH, F/O. VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL arises from O.P. No.9/2006 on the file of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. The O.P. was filed by the respondent for return of Rs.1,50,000/-, 29 sovereigns of gold ornaments and certain house-hold articles from respondents 1 and 2, husband and his father. By judgment dated 12-5-2008 the Family Court disposed of the matter directing that the respondent would be entitled to get Rs.46,000/- and 29 sovereigns of gold ornaments. In this appeal the appellants challenge the decree to the above extent.

(2.) WE heard the counsel for the appellants and and also the counsel for the respondent.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants contended that the respondent did not prove entrustment of gold ornaments with the appellants entitling return of the same from them. However, the case of the appellants as disclosed in the pleadings and evidence was to the effect that at the time when the respondent left the matrimonial home, she took away the gold ornaments. If that be so, it was for the appellants to have adduced evidence substantiating the said contention. It is also seen that the appellants had also contended that the respondent had given the gold ornaments to the mother and that has been questioned by the 1st appellant, which provoked her to leave from their house. Here again we notice that when the respondent tendered evidence as PW1 she was not cross-examined on this aspect. In the light of such evidence available before the Family Court, the finding of the Family Court that the appellants are liable to return the gold ornaments to the respondent cannot be said to be interfered with.