ROMI Vs. REEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/husband is the sole respondent in O.P.No.1194 of 2008 filed by his wife and minor child before the Family Court, Nedumangad, seeking to recover value of 896 gms of gold ornaments, future maintenance for herself and child and claiming various other monetary reliefs. The appellant filed O.P.No.994 of 2008 before the same court for restoration of conjugal company of his wife. After joint trial of both cases, the Family Court, Nedumangad, dismissed O.P.No.994 of 2008 and decreed O.P.No.1194 of 2008 in part, granting the wife and child future monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively and ordered the appellant to return 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments within three months from the date of the order and in default, to pay value of 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments as on the date of the common order passed in the original petitions.

(2.) The wife, 1st respondent in O.P.No.1194 of 2008, did not prefer any appeal challenging that part of the decree by which the court below dismissed the other monetary reliefs claimed by her and limited her right to recover gold ornaments to 40 sovereigns in lieu of 896 gms. So also, the appellant did not challenge the common order dismissing his O.P.No.994 of 2008 for conjugal company and the common order has consequently become final in respect of above matters.

(3.) The short facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are as follows: Appellant married the 1st respondent on 31.8.1986. Two children were born out of the wedlock. Maintenance is claimed for herself and on behalf of the minor second child who was born on 9.5.1996. Her case is that she was adorned with 101 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage and on the first day of the marriage itself, she entrusted the whole gold ornaments, except a few wearing ornaments such as, a pair of studs, two bangles and a thaali mala, with the appellant and he kept them as her trustee. The gold ornaments entrusted are specified in the A schedule to the original petition as 896 gms. The spouses shifted their residence to a rented house and the appellant began harassing her mentally and physically. He showed the signs of mental disorder and used to be a drunkard. For a very short period, there was matrimonial break down in 1990, but a few days later, she joined the appellant following the intervention of mediators. On 10.5.2005, appellant deserted her and the children refusing to maintain them. On 10.9.2008, she went along with her minor son demanding the appellant to return the gold ornaments entrusted by her with him as her trustee, which he refused and further she was turned away. Her further allegation is that she has no job or any source of livelihood of her own and she and child have been depending on her mother. Appellant is running a medical store and earning Rs.10,000/- per day. He is liable under law to maintain his spouse and also the child who is studying in VIIth Std. in Gokulam Public School. On these allegations, she sought to recover future maintenance of Rs.4,000/- for herself and Rs.5,000/- for the child. She also sought a decree for return of gold ornaments kept in his possession as a trustee.