SUMU MONCY Vs. LISA K JACOB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We refer to the parties as they are shown in the original petition filed before the family court. The petitioner was the wife of the 1st respondent. The petitioner obtained an ex parte decree against respondents 1 and 2 for Rs 4, 00, 000/- and 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The 2nd respondent is the mother of the 1st respondent. The ex parte decree against the 2nd respondent was set aside. The ex parte decree against the 1st respondent was retained. After trial the family court granted a decree against the 2nd respondent for Rs 4, 00, 000/- and 28 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It is against the said decree the appeal is filed by the 2nd respondent.

(2.) The case of the petitioner may be briefly stated as follows : Her marriage with the 1st respondent was solemnized on 5.7.1998. The former as bride wore 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments. There was a cash payment of Rs 4, 00, 000/- as her patrimony. The money was entrusted with the 2nd respondent in trust for the petitioner. She and the 1st respondent lived together only for 45 days. On 28.8.1998 the 1st respondent by force removed the gold bangles worn by the petitioner. Thereafter he took her to her house and left her there. At that time she was having with her only 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The remaining 35 sovereigns of ornaments are in the possession of the respondents.

(3.) The 2nd respondent contended as under : She did not receive Rs 4, 00, 000/- from the father of the petitioner. No money or gold ornaments were entrusted with the 2nd respondent or the 1st respondent. The allegation that the 1st respondent forcibly removed the gold bangles of the petitioner is false. The parents of the petitioner were not capable of raising Rs 4, 00, 000/- and the value of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Most of the ornaments worn by the petitioner were made of spurious gold.