KURUVILA VARGHESE AND OTHERS Vs. SOBHA VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 27.06.2006 in O.P.No.478/2004 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla by which a decree had been passed against the appellants/respondents directing them to pay an amount of Rs. 93,280/- being value of 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments with interest at 6% per annum from the respondents and their assets.

(2.) The short facts involved in the case would show that the 1st appellant herein married the respondent on 29.05.2004. They resided together at the 1st appellant's house till 25.06.2004 and thereafter they resided separately. It is contended that the 1st appellant was not having mental capacity to have proper family relationship. Therefore, they have been living separately for quite a long time and there is no possibility to continue the marital relationship. It is contended by the respondent in the original petition that at the time of betrothal of marriage an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- had been given to the 2nd appellant. The learned counsel submits that during the pendency of the original petition the said amount had been returned and therefore there is no further claim in that regard.

(3.) The respondent had a further claim that her sister had given 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments, out of which 35 sovereigns were taken by the 3rd appellant and in spite of repeated requests it was not returned. It is also contended that they have expended some amount as marriage expenses which is also liable to be returned. The appellants filed objections denying the aforesaid allegations. In respect of gold ornaments it is contended that the gold ornaments belonged to the sister of the respondent which was returned when she reached her parental home. She is in possession of a gold chain of 60 grams presented to her by the 3rd appellant. She also denied liability to pay marriage expenses as claimed. Before the Family Court, the respondent herein relied upon the evidence of PW1 to PW5 and Ext A1 series. The appellants relied upon the evidence of RW1 and RW2. The Family Court believed the version of PWs.1 and 2 but did not accept the evidence of PWs 3 to 5. Despite the contradictions in the evidence, the Family Court directed return of 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments and other claims were rejected.