JYOTHI MINI Vs. RAJENDRAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of an order dated 24/5/2011 in OS No.96/2003 of the Family Court, Kollam. Mat.Appeal No.616/11 is filed by the plaintiff/wife and Mat.Appeal No.801/11 by the defendant/husband. The suit is filed by the wife along with two minor children for recovery of gold ornaments, movables, money and also for maintenance of plaintiffs 2 and 3. The Family Court partly decreed the suit permitting the plaintiff to realise 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value of Rs.2,40,000/- with interest, Rs.25,000/-, Rs.48,550/- and Rs.9,750/-. Maintenance was also directed to be paid for the minor children. The wife had preferred the appeal dissatisfied with the decree passed and the husband has filed the appeal challenging the decree for return of gold ornaments and money.

(2.) The short facts of the case are as under and the parties are shown as directed in the original suit unless otherwise stated:- First plaintiff and the defendant got married on 13/11/1992 and two children were born in the wedlock. Matrimonial issues had arisen between the parties which resulted in the filing of the above suit. It is the case of the first plaintiff/wife that at the time of marriage, her parents had given her 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments. That apart, her brother had given to the defendant a gold chain weighing 4 sovereigns and a ring weighing 1 sovereign. After marriage during nallavathil ceremony, first plaintiff gave a bangle weighing 1 sovereign to the defendant's mother. First plaintiff's father had entrusted Rs.1 lakh to the defendant as her parental share two days before the marriage.. Subsequently a further amount of Rs.25,000/- was also given to the defendant and household articles were also given which were not returned. According to the first plaintiff, her husband had taken away all her gold ornaments and had appropriated the money given as parental share and had not returned the household articles. Therefore, she sought for return of the same.

(3.) Defendant having admitted the marriage and the paternity of the children denied that she was having 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments and that he had appropriated the same. According to him, the gold ornaments are in the possession of the first plaintiff. He also denied having been given gold chain weighing 4 sovereigns and a ring of 1 sovereign by the first plaintiff's brother. The payment of Rs.1 lakh and a further amount of Rs.25,000/- was also denied. He never demanded any amount and no such amount was paid. According to him, he had expended substantial amounts for the family members of the first plaintiff.