XXX Vs. XXX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unfailing regularity with which the the assertion of inequity is pressed before this Court by decree holders - enjoying decrees for return of gold issued by the learned Family Courts - qua the alternate direction to judgment debtors to pay its value, on the ground that it invariably represents an exiguous worth by the time its recovery becomes possible - on account of lapse of time spent in appeals and further forensic proceedings - as also considerable appreciation of the actual value of the gold, persuades us to answer it through this judgment, especially since plea for modification of the impugned judgment and decree - to enhance the amount to be paid as per the value of the gold at the time of its actual recovery - has been impelled before us through Cross objections.

(2.) In challenge in this appeal, is the judgment of the learned Family Court, Thiruvalla, in OP No.36/2015, which was decided on 7/5/2019, along with another matter.

(3.) The first appellant was married to the respondent, but matrimonial disputes appear to have arisen between them, which led to the latter filing the afore mentioned Original Petition seeking divorce; as also sought for return of her gold, fixed deposits and other articles by the former, which has been now decreed by the learned Family Court through the judgment in question.