K.N. LALITHAMMAL Vs. R. ANILKUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal had been filed by the petitioner in OP No.227/2004 of the Family Court, Thiruvalla challenging the decree to the extent her claim for return of gold ornaments had been rejected. Petitioner contended that at the time of marriage, i.e., on 20/9/2000, she was given 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments. In the petition, it is stated that after marriage, the couple lived together for 33 days. She left to Kuwait on 24/10/2000 and rejoined in her job. While leaving for Kuwait, except a thali chain, she entrusted all her gold ornaments to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent in turn entrusted the same to the 3rd respondent, husband's mother. There were matrimonial issues between the parties and they were living separated from each other. Losing hope of a decent family life, she sought for return of patrimony and value of gold ornaments. According to her, the respondents are bound to return 34 1/2 sovereigns of gold ornaments. She had also made a claim for return of money and value of certain household items. She had valued the gold ornaments at Rs. 3,43,107/-. In the objection filed, the respondents denied having received any amount or being entrusted with any of the gold ornaments.

(2.) Before the Family Court, the case was tried along with OP No.809/2006 filed for divorce. Common evidence was taken. Petitioner was examined as PW1 and witness on her behalf was examined as PW2. The respondent husband was examined as RW1. Family Court while rejecting the claim of the husband for divorce allowed OP No.227/2004 in part directing the 1st respondent to pay Rs. 1,29,582/- to the petitioner.

(3.) In this appeal, her claim is for the disallowed portion, viz., return of gold ornaments or its value. The Family Court dismissed the claim forming an opinion that there is no evidence to prove the entrustment or appropriation of gold ornaments. Reference is made to the evidence of PW2, who admitted to have received two bangles and chain for the purpose of pledging. Family Court found that when the evidence in the form of letters written by either of the parties proves that the entrustment of gold ornaments was not correct, it rejected the claim for return of gold ornaments.