P.K.SHINU Vs. DHANYA MADHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment in O.P. No. 126 of 2012 of Family Court, Muvattupuzha. The husband, who was the respondent before the Family Court is the appellant herein and wife, who was the petitioner before the Family Court is the respondent. The above case was filed by the wife against her husband for realization of gold ornaments and other valuables included in plaint A schedule list Petitioner had also claimed compensation of Rupees Two Lakhs towards mental agony from her husband. She also filed another petition, O.P. 125 of 2012 under Section 13(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act, for divorce. The husband denied the allegations in both cases by filing objections. Both cases were tried jointly by the lower court. To prove the case, on the side of petitioner, PWs. 1 to 6 were examined and Exts. A-1 to A-18 were marked. Respondent did not adduce any oral evidence, but Exts. B-1 to B-2 were marked on his side. Family Court decreed O.P. No. 126 of 2012 and directed the husband to return the gold ornaments and dresses included in A schedule to the wife within two months from the date of the decree. It was also directed that if he fails to return the articles and money as directed, the wife will be entitled to realise Rs. 5,57,750 with 9 % interest from the date of the decree till realisation. O.P. No. 125 of 2012 was dismissed by the trial court Aggrieved by the judgment in O.P. No. 126 of 2012, the husband preferred this appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that no documentary evidence was adduced by the respondent to prove that she had entrusted the entire gold ornaments as alleged in the petition. According to him, the burden of proof with regard to entrustment was upon the wife her and that in the absence of any evidence, and the order of the Family Court is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel relied on the decision Susan George v. Rahul Padman, 2012 1 KerLT 360 and the Apex Court Judgment in Rangammal v. Kuppuswami and another, 2011 AIR(SC) 2344

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent strongly resisted the above contention and contended that on the date of marriage itself, the entire gold ornaments were entrusted to the husband, which, was done in the ordinary course of life. It was contended that the photographs itself is a conclusive proof with regard to the quantity of gold ornaments and that there was no inconsistency in the documentary evidence and the oral testimony of P.W. 1. The learned counsel contended that the oral evidence of the respondent proved that she was wearing 35 sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage and that she got 12.4 sovereigns as gift. It was argued that her initial burden was discharged in the Family Court and in the absence of any contra evidence, the appellant is not entitled to succeed.