AJAYAKUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. ANUPAMA M. RAVEENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first appellant is the first respondent in OP 891/2007 of the family court, Ettumanoor and the appellants 2 and 3 are the father and mother of the first appellant. The first appellant is the husband of the respondent herein. The parties are referred to as in the original petition. The petitioner filed the aforesaid original petition claiming a decree for return of an amount of Rs 50,000/-, 8 sovereigns of gold ornaments and household articles or Rs 25,000/- as the value of the household articles. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnised on 22.6.2003 and after the marriage they lived together only for a period of 49 days. In the meanwhile, their marital relationship has become strained and they fell apart and started to live separately. According to the petitioner, at the time of marriage she was wearing 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments and an amount of Rs 50,000/- had been entrusted with the respondents as share of the petitioner. Out of the said 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments, 8 sovereigns of gold ornaments were still with the respondents. After the marriage the parents of the petitioner has given household articles worth Rs 25,000/- to the respondents. Though, she has demanded the return of money, gold ornaments and articles, they have not returned the same so far.

(2.) The respondents filed counter statement denying the claim for money, gold ornaments and household articles or its value. According to the respondents, no amount was given to them in connection with the marriage as share of the petitioner. There was no occasion to give any household articles to them except 'Nilavilakku'. As regards the gold ornaments, 4 sovereigns of 'tali' chain had been given by the first respondent to the petitioner and it is still with the petitioner. The petitioner entrusted a chain of 20 grams with the first respondent on the date of marriage and it is still with the respondent and ready to return the same. Similarly, a gold ring was given to the sister of the first respondent and a bangle weighing ? sovereigns of gold was given to the third respondent and they are willing to return the aforesaid ring and bangle. Thus they have admitted the custody of about 3 sovereigns of gold ornaments. So also they contended that a locked bag belong to the petitioner is there in the house of the respondents and the key of that bag is with the petitioner. According to them, the petitioner has wilfully deserted the respondents. The decree for return of gold ornaments as prayed for is not allowable and they are willing to return the admitted ornaments only.

(3.) On the aforesaid pleadings, both parties adduced evidence. The first respondent was examined as PW1, his sister was examined as PW2 and the petitioner was examined as RW1 in a joint trial along with the other connected case. On appreciation of the aforesaid evidence the family court granted the decree allowing the petitioner to realise Rs 50,000/- with 9% interest and 8 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its present approximate value Rs 85,000/- with 9% interest and also the household articles or Rs 15,000/- as its value from the respondents. The findings whereby the family court allowed the original petition and granted the decree are challenged in this appeal.