JOHN JOSEPH Vs. SHINY MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant and respondent are husband and wife respectively. The respondent filed O.P.303/2006 before the family court, Kottayam seeking a decree for return of money, gold ornaments and household articles. Parties are referred to as in the original petition. According to the petitioner, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 9.9.1999 in accordance with the Christian rites and custom at St.John CMS Anglican Church, Muttappally. After the marriage they lived together as husband and wife and one female child was born to them. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs 30, 000/- and five sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to the petitioner by her brother as her share. The brother of the petitioner by name K.M.Chacko had entrusted the said amount of Rs 30, 000/- with the respondent. One month after the marriage, the respondent had appropriated the entire gold ornaments except the 'thali' under the pretext that he intends to purchase some landed property.

(2.) The respondent filed objection contending that there was no solemnization of marriage on 9.9.1999 as stated in the petition. No amount or gold ornaments had been received by the respondent from the petitioner. But he admitted that both of them were residing together. Further he contended that after sometime the petitioner deserted the respondent stating that she is in love with another man. While they were living together the petitioner became pregnant and she has gone to her parental home for delivery. After the delivery the respondent and his family members attended the function in connection with delivery of the child and he made attempt to bring back the petitioner and child to his house through mediators. But, the petitioner refused the said offer and he is residing in the parental home on her own volition.

(3.) On the aforesaid pleadings both parties went on to trial and adduced evidence. The petitioner was examined as PW1 and PW2 to PW4 were examined and Ext A1 was marked. The respondent was examined as RW1 and Exts B1 to B5 were marked. After considering the aforesaid evidence on record, the family court passed the impugned judgment granting a decree for realizing Rs 30, 000/- with interest at 9% and for return of five sovereigns of gold ornaments or Rs 37, 500/- with interest as its value. The legality and correctness of the findings whereby the family court passed the impugned judgment are challenged in this appeal.