ANILKUMAR Vs. YAMUNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The proceedings before the family court was a suit. It was filed by the wife against her husband and fatherin-law. The decree sought was for return of money and gold ornaments. The family court decreed the claim partly. Hence the husband and father-in-law are in appeal.

(2.) The pleadings of the respondent may be summarized as follows. Her marriage with the 1st appellant was solemnized on 24.08.1996. Her matrimonial life was miserable. Rs 40, 000/- (forty thousand only) and 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to the 1st appellant as dowry. The amount was received by the 2nd appellant on behalf of the 1st appellant. The respondent had 8.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments more, which were the gifts she received in connection with the marriage from her relatives. The patrimony of the respondent given by her parents was used by the 1st appellant for his use. The respondent is entitled to a decree directing return of her patrimony and 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments.

(3.) The 2nd appellant did not contest the case before the family court. The 1st appellant alone contested. His contentions go as under. He never illtreated his wife. He did not demand any money as dowry. The respondent was not provided with 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments by her parents. The allegation that she had with her 8.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments more is false. The appellants never spent any money of the respondent. Nor did they take any of her ornaments. She had taken all her ornaments with her when she left her matrimonial home.