RAMAKRISHNAN ACHARI Vs. SASIKALA S.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the 2nd respondent in OP No.719/2005 challenging judgment dated 10/4/2008. The Original Petition had been filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking for return of gold ornaments and money.

(2.) It is the case of the 1st respondent/wife that she married the appellant's son, the 2 nd respondent herein, on 19/12/1999. There were matrimonial issues between them and they got separated. It is her case that at the time of marriage, Rs.20,000/- was paid as her share and the money was entrusted to respondents 1 to 3 in the OP, who are her husband and his parents. That apart, household articles worth Rs.25,000/- was also entrusted with them. She also contended that at the time of marriage, her parents had given her 17 sovereigns of gold ornaments which were entrusted to the 1 st respondent/husband and he had appropriated the same. The respondents denied the allegations. According to the respondents, they have not appropriated any of the amounts, but they admitted having received Rs.20,000/- and the furniture. However, they have denied the fact that they have appropriated any of the gold ornaments belonging to the 1st respondent herein.

(3.) Before the Family Court, 5 witnesses were examined on the side of the petitioner of which PW2 was later expunged. She relied upon Exts.A1 to A4. The appellant herein was examined as CPW1 and he relied upon Ext.B1. The factual situation which had arisen in the matter through evidence and pleadings further indicate that a child was born in the wedlock and matrimonial issues had arisen immediately after the marriage. An agreement was executed between the husband, his father on the one side and the 1 st respondent's brother on the other side on 14/2/2001 wherein the first party to the agreement , ie the appellant and his son had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.99,068/- to the first respondent herein on or before 13/8/2001. It is in evidence that despite the agreement, the money was not paid but the couple were living together as husband and wife. Again they got separated and another agreement was executed on 13/10/2002 by which the appellant agreed to assign 2 cents of property in the joint names of his son and daughter-in-law. It seems that still the parties got separated. However, no assignment was made as promised in the agreement dated 13/10/2002.