PARAMMAL REJEENA Vs. PALLIPARA MEHABOOB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the petitioner in O.P.No.478/2006 of the Family Court, Malappuram.

(2.) The claim was made for return of 22 1/2 sovereigns of gold ornaments and a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. Gold ornaments were given to her at the time of her marriage and Rs. 25,000/- was given as her share during her marriage. According to the petitioner, the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 30.1.1995. They lived together for about 3 years. In the meanwhile, 2 children were born in the wedlock. The petitioner contended that about 17 1/2 sovereigns of gold ornaments belonged to her was taken away by the first respondent by pledge and the money was misutilised. The balance gold ornaments were also taken away alleging that it is required for an employment and the same has been sold and lost. Rs. 25,000/- has been paid at the time of marriage which she is entitled to get back. The respondent/husband denied the entire allegations. According to him, she never had any gold ornaments and no money was paid as alleged.

(3.) Before the Family Court, the petitioner was examined as PW1 and the respondents as RWs 1 to 3. Exts.A1 to A5 and Exts.X1 to X1(1) were marked as evidence. In addition to the aforesaid claim, the petitioner had a claim for Rs. 50,000/-, which according to her, she had taken loan and given to her husband. The Family Court rejected the claim for return of gold ornaments and the claim for Rs. 25,000/-, whereas, granted a decree for recovery of Rs. 50,000/-. The first respondent preferred an appeal before this Court as Mat.Appeal No.446/2007 against the decree passed in the case, allowing a claim for Rs. 50,000/-. This Court, by judgment dated 22.8.2017, has allowed the appeal, whereby, setting aside the decree to the extent of allowing the realisation of Rs. 50,000/-. The pendency of the above appeal unfortunately was not brought to the notice of court during the relevant time. However, nothing prevents us from adjudicating the claim in the present appeal. Insofar in Mat.Appeal No.446/2007, we are only concerned with the decree passed for Rs. 50,000/- which was a separate claim and that the said decree stands now set aside.