KURIAN Vs. LINCY ELIZABETH THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.P.1075/2007 of the family court, Kottayam, filed by the 1st respondent against the appellants in both the appeals. M.A.292/2009 was filed by respondents 1 and 3 in the aforesaid OP and M.A.420/2009 was filed by the 1st respondent in the said OP. The aforesaid OP was filed by the 1st respondent herein against the appellants in both appeals seeking a decree for return of 82 sovereigns of gold ornaments, Rs 6, 00, 000/- and 5000 US dollars. The 1st respondent in both appeals is the wife of the appellant in M.A.420/2009. The appellants 1 and 2 in M.A.292/2009 are the father and mother of the appellants in M.A.420/2009. The appellants herein disputed the claim and denied the entrustment of money and gold ornaments with them in connection with the marriage. After considering the evidence on record the family court allowed the OP in part and passed decree to realize Rs 6, 00, 000/- with 9% interest and 82 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its approximate value of Rs 7, 40, 000/- with 9% interest from the appellants in these appeals and rejected the claim for realizing 5000 US dollars equal to Rs 2, 00, 000/-. These appeals are filed challenging the findings whereby the family court passed the impugned judgment and decree allowing the aforesaid reliefs.

(2.) The brief facts of the case can be summarized as follows : The parties are referred to as in the original petition. The petitioner is the wife of the 1st respondent and respondents 2 and 3 are the father and mother of the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, her marriage with the 1st respondent was solemnized on 11.2002 as per the christian rites at Kottayam. An amount of Rs 6, 00, 000/- was entrusted with the respondents on the betrothal day. That apart, the petitioner had 100 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. The petitioners' parents promised to take the 1st respondent to USA as the parents and the petitioner were working in USA at that time. Seven days after the marriage, the petitioner left to USA to resume her work as Nursing Assistant. At the time when she left to USA, she had entrusted her gold ornaments with the respondents, except 18 sovereigns for her personal use. After nine months she came back to India and resided together with the 1st respondent and after four months she returned to USA. Subsequently, the 1st respondent was also taken to USA and there they resided together with her parents who were working in USA. Later, the petitioner and the 1st respondent shifted to another rented house. However, subsequently the marital relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent has become strained and they fell apart. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent treated her with cruelty and subsequently the 1st respondent filed an application for divorce and the petitioner demanded return of Rs 6, 00, 000/- and 82 sovereigns of gold ornaments and the value of household articles by the respondents. But, they were not willing to return the same. According to her, being the trustees of the aforesaid amount and gold ornaments, the respondents are liable to return the same. In the above circumstances, the petitioner filed the Original Petition praying for a decree to realize Rs 6, 00, 000/- and 82 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs 2, 00, 000/- equal to 5000 US dollars.

(3.) The respondents filed an objection with a counterclaim, denying the entire claim and prayed for dismissal of the original petition. The respondents admitted the marital relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent; but according to them, Rs 30, 000/- alone was given to them in connection with the marriage to purchase dress materials. It is specifically contented that the respondents are not aware of the particulars of the ornaments owned by the petitioner at the time of marriage and they do not know what happened to those ornaments. No ornaments had been entrusted with the respondents. But on the other hand, the 1st respondent has given nine sovereigns of gold ornaments to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent has spent money for the journey of the 1st respondent to USA. They denied the allegation that the petitioners' parents had spent 5000 US dollars for purchasing household articles. According to the 1st respondent, the petitioner never resided separately with the 1st respondent in USA. The 1st respondent was also working in USA and his income was also entrusted with the parents of the petitioner. According to them, the petitioner treated him with cruelty. Respondents 2 and 3 filed counter-claim for getting back nine sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value from the petitioner.