THOMAS Vs. MERCY V.X. AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the father of the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent is the wife of the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent filed a petition against the appellant and the 2nd respondent claiming a decree for return of money and gold ornaments. The claim of the 1st respondent was allowed by the family court. Hence the appellant who was the 2nd respondent before the family court is in appeal.

(2.) The case pleaded by the 1st respondent before the family court goes as follows : Her marriage with the 2nd respondent was on 28.2.2000. She was provided Rs 1,00,000/- as patrimony. She as bride wore 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments. They were entrusted with the appellant and the 2nd respondent. They appropriated the money and gold ornaments for their extravagant life. The marital relationship went unfriendly as the husband was cruel to the wife.

(3.) The appellant as well as the 2nd respondent entered appearance before the family court. They participated in the counselling. They filed objection against the claim of the 1st respondent. Thereafter they vanished. They did not cross-examine the 1st respondent who gave evidence as PW1. The family court writes that several opportunities were given for cross-examining PW1. The family court writes further that the opportunities were not availed of by the appellant and the 2nd respondent. In these circumstances, the family court granted a decree as prayed for against the appellant as well as the 2nd respondent.