P. E. SUKUMARAN Vs. THRETHANJALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Husband before the Family Court, Vadakara in O.P.No.364 of 2011 is the appellant. He challenges the impugned order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the Family Court, directing him to make payment of Rs.12,63,366/- being the value of 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the respondent/wife with interest at 6% per annum from the date of original petition till actual recovery.

(2.) The respondent/wife filed O.P.No.364 of 2011 claiming value of the aforesaid gold ornaments alleged to be misappropriated by the appellant along with another O.P.No.363 of 2011 seeking an order restituiting conjugal company of the appellant with her. By the impugned common order, O.P.No.363 of 2011 was allowed and appellant was ordered to restore conjugal company to the respondent. However, that part of the order directing restitution of conjugal company is not under challenge and his sole grievance is confined to the order awarding recovery of value of gold ornaments.

(3.) The spouses were married on 01.09.2002 and no issues were born out of their wedlock. The appellant is the Principal of M.G. Parallel college earning reasonably good income from the institution. According to the respondent, at the time of marriage, she was adorned with 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments, of which 60 sovereigns were purchased by her father/PW.2 and given to her. The rest of the ornaments were given by her relatives as gift. It is her case that on the first day of marriage itself, appellant's father was entrusted with the entire ornaments at the instruction of the appellant. After nearly two years, he compelled her to sell 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments and keep the amount in deposit with some bank in the names of his parents. He avoided to take deposit in his personal name for fear of liability for payment of income tax. The ornaments were taken and sold by appellant to Aruna Jewellery in Koyilandy. According to her, the ornaments were misappropriated by him. In the meantime, the matrimonial relationship between spouses strained and she started living separated from the appellant. Since her demand for return of gold ornaments failed, she filed the O.P. for return of gold ornaments or in the alternative, the market value of the same on the date of original petition.