P I KASSIM Vs. T E RASHEEDA BEEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the respondents in O.P.576/2008 of the Family court, Kottayam. The first appellant is the husband of the respondent and the second appellant is the mother of the first appellant. The aforesaid original petition was filed by the respondent herein, seeking a decree for return of money, gold ornaments and household articles from the appellants herein. The appellants herein filed objection, denying the claim raised by the respondent herein.

(2.) On the rival pleas both parties adduced evidence and after considering the evidence on record, the Family Court allowed the original petition and passed a decree to realise Rs. 1, 00, 000/- with interest and 24 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its present approximate value of Rs. 2, 50, 000/- with 9% interest and also the household articles shown in the plaint and in default, to realise Rs. 6, 000/- from the appellants, on a finding that the respondent has succeeded to prove the claim. The legality and correctness of the aforesaid findings, whereby the Family Court passed the impugned judgment and decree, are assailed in this appeal.

(3.) The brief facts of the case can be summarized as follows: The parties are referred to as in the original petition. According to the petitioner, the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 22.1.2001 as per Mohammedan law and at the time of marriage, an amount of Rs. 1, 00, 000/- was entrusted with the respondents and the petitioner was wearing 24 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Subsequently, the respondents appropriated the above said money and gold ornaments. That apart, three sovereigns of gold ornaments of the child also was taken by the respondents to meet their personal needs. Subsequently, their marital relationship became strained and they fell apart. According to the petitioner, the respondents have treated her with cruelty. Later, the first respondent divorced the petitioner by pronouncing talak. They are living separate from 28.2008 onwards. Being the trustees of money and gold ornaments, they are liable to return the same, but they are not willing to return the same and they rejected the claim for ornaments and it is still with the respondents. The respondents filed a counter statement admitting that the first respondent was given Rs. 50, 000/- in connection with the marriage and the petitioner was wearing 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. But, they have not appropriated the said gold ornaments and they are with the petitioner. So, they are not liable to return money or gold ornaments, as claimed by the petitioner. So also they contended that no gold ornament of the child had been taken by them. 24 grams of gold ornaments had been given as mahar. According to the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to get money and gold ornaments as claimed by her.