WINNY M KOSHY Vs. SINI GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed challenging judgment dated 5/7/2010 in OP No. 171/2009 by which the Family Court allowed the claim in part in favour of the petitioner/wife granting a decree for recovery of Rs 5 lakh with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of suit along with 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its approximate value of Rs 8 lakhs with 7% interest and Rs 25,000/- as value of movable items from respondents 1 to 3.

(2.) The short facts that have arisen in the matter are as under. Parties are described as shown in the Original Petition. Petitioner had filed OP No.174/2009 for divorce and OP No.171/2009 for return of gold ornaments and money. Common evidence was taken in the case and by a common judgment dated 5/7/2010, the Family Court granted divorce and also decreed the money claim in part. The marriage of the parties was solemnized on 26/1/2004. According to the petitioner, an amount of Rs 7 lakhs and 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given as the share of the petitioner at the time of marriage, out of which Rs 5 lakh was given on the betrothal day and remaining Rs 2 lakh was given as Fixed Deposit after six months. At the time of marriage, respondent was working as Accountant in Bahrain and later petitioner also joined him. She alleged that he was an alcoholic and used to illtreat her. He also appropriated the entire share amount given to him. He returned from Gulf on 15/3/2005 and the petitioner gave birth to a child on 12/4/2005. He came back on 24/5/2005 and continued the cruel attitude. He was demanding more money and therefore her father gave Rs 1 lakh more towards her share. She further contended that a teak almirah worth Rs 35,000/- and a cot and bed worth Rs 25,000/- was also given by her parents. She alleged that all her gold ornaments, money and household items were appropriated by the respondent and therefore she sought for return of the same.

(3.) Respondent denied the aforesaid allegations. According to them, only Rs 50,000/- was entrusted as marriage expenses and there was no agreement between them to give the amount or gold ornaments at the time of marriage. They further contended that the entire gold ornaments of the petitioner had been entrusted with her mother at Ranni when she left to Bahrain and no ornaments were entrusted to the 3rd respondent.