ABIN PHILIP Vs. YANCY MARY ISSAC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from the judgment in OP NO.1539/12 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla, and the respondents therein are the appellants herein. Respondent herein filed the OP under Section 7 of the Family Court Act for realisation of patrimony from the appellants. By the impugned judgment rendered on 4/5/13, the Family Court decreed the OP allowing the respondent to realise Rs.5,00,000/- as patrimony with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation and costs from the appellants and their assets.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the first appellant and the respondent belong to Roman Catholic (Syrian) Christian community and their marriage was solemnized on 01/01/2007 at the Infant Jesus Church, Thoduvayal, Pala in accordance with the religious rites and ceremonies. For various reasons, the relationship between the parties did not last long and on account of the absence of any scope for reunion, at the intervention of the mediators, it was decided to apply for the dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent. Accordingly, OP NO.1147/09 was filed under Section 10A of the Divorce Act before the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. It is stated that when the case was posted for evidence, the first appellant remained absent and therefore the divorce petition was dismissed for his non appearance. As a result of the above, the respondent filed OP 657/10 for divorce on the ground of cruelty and by judgment dated 29/2/12, the Family Court allowed the petition. Subsequently, the respondent filed OP No.1539/12 for realisation of her patrimony of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest and costs.

(3.) THOUGH the marriage was admitted, the appellants denied payment of any patrimony or sthreedhanam. According to them, the second appellant hails from a respectable and affluent family with all his children well settled in life and would not accept any money as sthreedhanam. They denied that there was any function on 4/11/2006 or that any amount was entrusted to the second appellant. It is also stated that before the joint petition under Section 10A of the Divorce Act was filed, on the suggestion of the mediators, all the personal belongings of each other were handed over and an affidavit and acknowledgment was executed to which both parties had affixed their signature. Therefore, it was contended that the omission to claim patrimony in the previous proceedings was a deliberate one and was not for the reason pleaded by the respondent.