VASUDEVAN NAIR Vs. V K JAYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O. S. No. 356 of 1992 on the file of the Prl. Sub Judge, kottayam, is the appellant. The said suit instituted by his wife, the respondent herein, was one for realisation of a sum of Rs. 25,000/- paid to the defendant at the time of marriage and Rs. 29,000/- being the value of gold ornaments allegedly appropriated by him.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff can be summarised as follows:- The marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant was solemnised on 23. 1. 1985. Before the marriage, the defendant had demanded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards the plaintiff's share from her family. The plaintiff's brother issued a cheque in favour of the defendant for Rs. 20,000/- which was encashed by him on 2. 5. 1985. One week before the marriage the balance amount of Rs. 5,000/- was also paid. At the time of marriage the plaintiff was given gold ornaments worth Rs. 10= sovereigns. When the plaintiff left for her parental home for delivery, she was allowed to take only half of the gold ornaments. She gave birth to a son. The defendant or his relatives did not even visit the plaintiff or her son. Subsequently, on the intervention of the N. S. S. Karayogam, the plaintiff resumed her co-habitation with the defendant. While in the matrimonial home she was ill-treated and her ornaments were taken away by the defendant. In March, 1988, the plaintiff was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and start residing in her parental house. She is entitled to recover the aforementioned amounts with interest at 12% per annum.

(3.) THE appellant/defendant resisted the suit contending, inter alia, as follows:-This defendant had not demanded any money prior to the marriage. He only wanted some time for the solemnisation of the marriage. But the plaintiff's relatives did not want to post- pone the marriage. So they paid Rs. 20,000/- to this defendant and the same was utilised of purchasing thali chain and others. The said amount was not paid towards the plaintiff's share. There was no payment of Rs. 5000/- as alleged. The allegation that the plaintiff was given gold ornaments worth 10 = sovereigns is not true. This defendant did not ill-treat the plaintiff. She was a dis-obedient wife. In August, 1988, she had left the matrimonial home without the consent or knowledge of this defendant. She had taken way all her ornaments while she went to her parental home for delivery. It is not true that she was allowed to take only half of her ornaments. The allegation of misappropriation by this defendant of the plaintiff's ornaments is also denied. This defendant is not liable for any of the amounts shown in the plaint. The provocation for the suit was the notice issued by this defendant calling upon her to return to the matrimonial home. The suit may be dismissed with costs.