SANEERA @ SUNEERA AND OTHERS Vs. ABDURAHIMAN HAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There were three proceedings between the same parties before the family court, Malappuram. They were O.P. No. 338/2007, O.P. No.339/2007 and M.C. No.579/2007. The family court dismissed all the proceedings. Mat. Appeal Nos.723 of 2007 and 563 of 2008 are directed against the dismissal of O.P. No.338/2007 and O.P. No.339/2007 respectively. We refer to the parties as shown in O.P. No.339/2007.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is briefly stated below: The 1st petitioner was married to the respondent. The marriage was solemnized on 30.06.1992. Petitioners 2 to 4 are the children born in the wedlock. The 1st petitioner had 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage. She brought the same to her matrimonial home. Rs. 2,00,000/- was given to the respondent by the father of the 1st petitioner just before the marriage. The gold ornaments of the 1st petitioner were taken and appropriated by the respondent. He is liable to return the gold ornaments and the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. There was another payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- by the 1st petitioner to the respondent in 2003. It was given for the construction of the house of the respondent. For the construction of the said house, the father of the 1st petitioner had given timber worth approximately Rs. 2,00,000/-. The respondent is working abroad. He is not providing maintenance to his wife and children. He is not providing maintenance to them since March, 2007. Petitioners 1 to 4 are entitled to maintenance at the rates of Rs. 4,500/-, Rs. 4,000/-, Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 3,000/- per month respectively. They are entitled to Rs. 32,500/- as past maintenance. They are also entitled to Rs. 1,80,000/- being the future maintenance for one year at the same rates.

(3.) The respondent appeared and contested the cases through his power of attorney holder. The contentions can be summarised as follows: There was no payment of money before or at the time of the marriage or even thereafter. The father of the 1st petitioner did not give timber or any other construction materials, much less worth approximately Rs. 2,00,000/-. The 1st petitioner did not have 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The respondent did not take or appropriate the money and ornaments of the 1st petitioner. The former has been maintaining his wife and children all along. The 1st petitioner is living away from the respondent for no fault of his. She is not entitled to such separate residence.