TREASA BENCY Vs. PRECELINE GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment debtor in EP No.7 of 2016 in OP No.1698 of 2009 on the file of Family Court, Ernakulam, filed this original petition challenging Ext.P13 order dtd. 1/12/2021.

(2.) The petitioner herein filed OP No.1698 of 2009 for recovery of money and gold. The respondent/husband preferred a counterclaim for recovery of 11 sovereigns of gold ornaments entrusted by him with the petitioner/wife. That OP was tried along with two other OPs, and a common judgment was delivered by the Family Court on 31/7/2012, granting a decree in favour of the wife, and she was directed to return the gold ornaments of the husband, as and when she gets back the money and gold from the husband, as per the decree.

(3.) Admittedly, the respondent/husband paid Rs.15.00 lakh and returned the wedding ring to the petitioner as per the decree, and thereafter he filed EP No.7 of 2016 to get back the gold ornaments as claimed in his counterclaim. The wife opposed that EP, but, as per Ext.P4 order, the Family Court directed the wife to return 11 sovereigns of gold to the husband, or its value as prayed in the EP with interest @ 9% per annum, within one month. The wife preferred OP(FC) No.154 of 2019 before this Court to set aside Ext.P4 order. As per Ext.P5 judgment, this Court set aside Ext.P4 order and remanded the matter to Family Court, Ernakulam, for further consideration. Accordingly, the Family Court passed Ext.P13 order directing the wife to return 86 gms of gold ornaments scheduled in the counterclaim, or its present market value with interest @ 9% per annum. Against that order, now the judgment debtor has preferred this original petition.