RAFEEQ Vs. SAMEERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals under Sec. 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 have been filed against the order dtd. 11/07/2019 in O.P.No.135/2016 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram. O.P.No.135/2016 was filed by the petitioner/wife for return of gold ornaments and money alleged to have been given to the respondent/husband at the time of the marriage. Mat.Appeal No.976/2019 has been filed by the husband and Mat.Appeal No.387/2022, by the wife. The parties in these appeals will be referred to as described in O.P.No.135/2016.

(2.) There are four petitioners in O.P.No.135/2016. The first petitioner is the wife of the respondent and petitioners 2 to 4, their children. The marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 14/07/1999 as per the rites and customs of the community to which they belong. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was given 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh which has been misappropriated by the respondent. The petitioner was subjected to cruelty by the respondent and his family at the matrimonial home. The respondent/husband took the petitioner to her house for delivery, thereafter, never turned up to maintain the petitioners or to meet their daily expenses. Though attempts were made to settle the matter between the parties, the husband was not prepared for any sort of settlement. As the respondent is not maintaining the petitioners, maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000.00 per month for the first petitioner and Rs.4,000.00 each for petitioners 2 to 4 was claimed. An amount of Rs.3,91,000.00 was claimed towards arrears of past maintenance from 04/04/2014 to 02/04/2016. The petitioner prayed that the respondent be directed to return gold ornaments weighing 140.60 grams or its value of Rs.3,20,000.00.

(3.) The respondent/husband denied the allegations of the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner is his maternal aunt's daughter. It was his second marriage. The petitioner and her family are financially very poor and hence there was never any demand for money or gold as dowry. The petitioner did not have any gold ornaments and so no gold ornaments had been entrusted to the respondent.