LAWS(KER)-2018-1-14

CHULLIYIL SAITHALAVI Vs. CHULLIYIL JAMSHEENA

Decided On January 23, 2018
Chulliyil Saithalavi Appellant
V/S
Chulliyil Jamsheena Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the respondents in O.P.34/2010 of the Family Court, Malappuram. The said original petition was filed by the respondents herein under Section 7(1) Expl(a) of the Family Courts Act claiming a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- towards the value of 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.1,00,000/- from the appellants.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows : The parties are referred to as in the original petition. The marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was solemnized on 24.5.2007 and a girl child was born in that wedlock. According to the petitioner, at the time of marriage, she was wearing gold ornaments weighing 75 sovereigns and when the 1st respondent came to the room of the wife to give mahar, the petitioner's father entrusted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the 1st respondent. Her father could arrange only 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments for the marriage though he had given an assurance to the 1st respondent that the petitioner would be given 100 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Since he could not give the balance of 25 sovereigns, the 1st respondent dropped the petitioner in her parental home in the bargain. In the above circumstances the petitioner filed the aforesaid OP with the relief as prayed for.

(3.) The respondents filed a joint written statement denying the allegations levelled against them in the O.P. They have contended that prior to the marriage there was no demand for 100 sovereigns of gold ornaments or money. No amount was given to him in connection with the marriage as alleged by the petitioner. Similarly at the time of marriage she was not given 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments. So also denied the allegations of matrimonial cruelty and harassment towards the petitioner. According to them, they have not taken or misappropriated any ornaments or money. In fact, the father of the petitioner had obtained a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the 1st respondent for conducting the marriage. With the aforesaid contention they prayed for dismissal of the original petition.