SHAJI VARGHESE Vs. BINCY MARY PUNNEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree under challenge is one passed by the family court. The appeal is filed by the respondents in the original petition. We refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the original petition.

(2.) The case of the petitioner goes as follows: Her marriage with the first respondent was solemnised on 15.1.2001. The agreed dowry of Rs 6,00,000/- was entrusted with the second respondent in the presence of the first respondent on 6.1.2001 on which day was the betrothal. The petitioner wore 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. The first respondent had taken all the gold ornaments and had entrusted the same with the second respondent before the former left for Kuwait. An almirah worth Rs 10,000/- was also given by the father of the petitioner. The money, almirah and gold ornaments of the petitioner are not returned by the respondents.

(3.) The first respondent made appearance, but did not contest the case. The second respondent had the following contentions: There was no payment of Rs 6,00,000/-. Nor did the petitioner wear 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. The father of the petitioner had entrusted Rs 4,00,000/- with the first respondent. Out of the same, Rs 1,00,000/- was spent for the marriage ceremony. The first respondent purchased two gold chains of eight sovereigns, one pair of anklet of three sovereigns and a gold ring of one sovereign spending Rs 50,000/- and gave the same to the petitioner. She wore only 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. A steel almirah was brought to the house of the respondents, but the key of it was always with the petitioner. The respondents have no objection in the petitioner taking the said almirah.