BINDU Vs. SURENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the ex-wife of the respondent. The former approached the family court with two claims. One, past and future maintenance. Two, return of 11 sovereigns of gold ornaments or Rs. 50,600/-as the value thereof and a few household articles. The family court refused one of the claims of the appellant and allowed the other claim partly.

(2.) The case of the appellant is briefly stated below: She and the respondent were married on 19.5.1996. They moved a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent. The same was allowed on 30.7.2004. The appellant had 16 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage. She brought to her matrimonial home the household articles shown in the B schedule to the petition. A chain weighing one sovereign was given to the respondent by the brother of the appellant at the time of the marriage. On compulsion, the appellant handed over her 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the respondent two months after the marriage. He pledged those ornaments and used the money for his personal needs. He is liable to return the said 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments and also the gold chain weighing one sovereign given to him by her brother. The respondent took the appellant to her house and left her there on 16.3.2000. He did not maintain her since then. She is entitled to Rs. 1500/- a month for her maintenance. She is entitled to it for three years before the date of the petition, besides her future entitlement.

(3.) The respondent admitted the marriage and divorce. The former raised the following contentions: The appellant was primarily responsible for the break down of the marital relationship. He did not take any ornament of hers. She left his house of her own. At that time she had taken all her ornaments except a chain and two bangles. He is ready to return those ornaments. The 'tali' chain weighing 2.5 sovereigns presented by the respondent is with the appellant. She is liable to return it. Among the articles shown in the B schedule, only one almirah was brought by the appellant. That one is not of the make Godrej. The appellant is not entitled to any amount as maintenance from the respondent. She is capable of maintaining herself. She is doing tailoring and embroidery works. She earns Rs. 5000/- a month.