DIVYA S Vs. ANIL P LABIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P.No. 929/10 challenging the judgment dated 17.12.2011 of Family Court Kottayam at Ettumanoor, by which the petition seeking return of gold ornaments and other articles had been rejected by the Family Court.

(2.) The short facts of the case are as under. The parties are described as shown in the original petition.

(3.) The respondents filed their objection through their power of attorney. They denied that they had appropriated any gold ornaments or money. According to them, the petitioner was wearing some gold ornaments at the time of marriage, but they do not know its weight. It was kept under the lock and key of the petitioner. The respondents admitted that two bangles weighing ¾ sovereigns each were gifted to the 2nd respondent and the sister of the 1st respondent. She used to wear 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments for her daily use. At the time of marriage, the 1st respondent gifted a Thali chain weighing 5.5 sovereigns to the petitioner and the petitioner had given a chain weighing 1 ¾ sovereigns to the 1st respondent. They lived together for about 20 days. On 09.12.2007, he went back to his work place at Ajman. The 1st respondent was made to believe that the petitioner will stay at his house at Kollam, but she resided with her parents and informed him that she wanted to stay with them at Chembu. The petitioner and her mother visited the house of the 1st respondent on 14.4.2008 on the Vishu day. The 1st respondent came back from Ajman on 28.06.2008 on three months leave. Though he informed about his arrival she was not willing to come back to her matrimonial home. He left to Ajman on 24.09.2008 as his leave was over. Though he tried his level best, the petitioner did not come back to live with him. According to him their matrimonial life lasted only for 20 days. The Almirah given by the petitioner's mother was worth Rs.3,000/- and the mobile phone was worth Rs.4,000/-. The respondents never took her gold ornaments to pay off the liability of the 3rd respondent, they never behaved in a cruel manner towards the petitioner nor have taken her money for renovation of the house and no promise was given to provide share of property.