SINI THOMAS Vs. SHAJI JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wife's petition seeking realisation of her 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments alleged to have been entrusted with the husband/respondent was dismissed by Family Court, Kalpetta, by the impugned order passed on 30.10.2012. She challenges the said order in this appeal.

(2.) The parties belong to Christian community. The appellant was married to the respondent on 26.4.2008. A male child was born out of the wedlock. Her case is that she was adorned with 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. On the fourth day of the marriage itself, the 2nd respondent, who is the mother in law, took away 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments ignoring her resistance stating that the ornaments would be held in her custody on her behalf. The first respondent/ husband also acted in support of his mother. It is alleged that the matrimonial relationship gradually strained on account of the unlawful demand of the respondent for more gold as dowry. On 19.5.2010, the respondents insisted the appellant to give them 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and it was threatened that in the case of failure, the matrimonial relationship itself would be dropped. In view of the strained relationship, she demanded the respondents to give her back the ornaments taken and on their refusal, the original petition was filed demanding return of 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments alleged to be in the continued possession of the 2nd respondent.

(3.) The son and mother filed joint counter statement denying all the allegations raised against them. 1st respondent claimed that he preferred to marry a girl who is fair looking irrespective of her financial status and accordingly, the appellant was chosen as his bride. She hailed from a very poor family and her father was not in a position to give any gold to the daughter. He agreed that he would give 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments to his daughter after the marriage. It is contended that the 1st respondent married the appellant without expecting any assets from her. It is also contended that with the knowledge of the respondents, the appellant was adorned with imitation gold ornaments. Nonetheless, there was no demand from the side of the respondents for any gold or cash. It is contended that the matrimonial relationship strained only on account of the misbehaviour and misconduct of the appellant. Both the respondents therefore denied their liability to account for the demand made for return of gold ornaments.