RATHEESH KUMAR & ORS. Vs. DEVI CHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the respondents in O.P.No.636/2006 of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. 1st appellant is the husband of the respondent and 2nd appellant is the mother of the 1st appellant. The aforesaid Original Petition was filed by the respondent herein seeking a decree for realising Rs. 2,70,000/- and 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the respondents. After trial, the Family Court passed the impugned judgment and decree allowing the respondent herein to realise Rs. 70,000/- with 9%interest and 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its approximate value of Rs. 1,50,000/- with 9% interest, from the appellants herein. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the appellants have filed this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the findings, whereby the court below passed the impugned judgment and decree against them. The facts of the case can be summarized as follows: The marriage between the 1st appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 06.12.2004 in accordance with the religious rites and customs. The marriage was a love marriage. So, on 22.11.2004 the 1st appellant arranged a register marriage and advised the respondent to keep it in secret, and they lived separately till the solemnization of religious marriage. When the parents of the 1st appellant and respondent came to know about the registered marriage between them, the parents of the 1st appellant went to the house of the respondent and made a conditional assurance that the marriage can be solemnized in accordance with the religious rites and ceremonies, if the parents of the respondent was willing to give Rs. 2 Lakhs and 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the respondent as her share, and the parents of the respondent agreed for the same. Consequent on the said assurance made by the parents of the respondent, the religious marriage was solemnized on 06.12.2004. After the fixation of the religious marriage, on 04.12.2004, the father of the respondent went to the house of the appellants and entrusted Rs. 2 Lakhs with the 2nd appellant towards the share of the respondent. At the time of marriage, the respondent was wearing 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments and subsequently, the said gold ornaments were entrusted with the appellants within a short span of time. After the marriage, the appellants began to ill-treat the respondent with cruelty, on demand of more money from her parents. The 2nd appellant sent a letter to the mother of the respondent demanding Rs. 70,000/- so as to give the same to one Unni and on receipt of the said letter, the mother of the respondent has given Rs. 70,000/- to the 2nd appellant. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- was entrusted with the 2nd appellant in connection with the marriage. While so, the appellants have taken the entire gold ornaments and sold away the same to meet their personal needs. The marital relationship has become very strained, and thereafter, they began to live separately and filed an Original Petition for dissolution of marriage and return of money and gold ornaments. Thus, the respondent is entitled to get Rs. 2,70,000/- and 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value from the appellants.

(2.) The 1st appellant filed objection denying the claim of money and gold ornaments. But, he admitted the marriage. The appellants also denied the allegation that they have treated the respondent with cruelty. According to them, the statement that Rs. 2,70,000/- was entrusted with the 2nd appellant in connection with the marriage, was absolutely false. At the time of marriage, the respondent was wearing imitation ornaments only. The 2nd appellant never demanded any amount or gold ornaments in connection with the marriage. Thus, the appellants denied the claim for money and gold ornaments.

(3.) On the aforesaid pleadings, both parties faced trial and adduced evidence. The respondent herein was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked. RW1 to RW3 were examined and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked for the respondents therein. After considering the aforesaid evidence on record, the Family Court passed the impugned order granting a decree for realising Rs. 70,000/- and 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest from the appellants, but rejected the claim for Rs. 2 Lakhs.