HEMA Vs. BAIJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the petitioners in O.P.No.760/2007 of the Family Court, Palakkad. The 1st petitioner married the 1st respondent on 9.4.2001 as per Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. The 2nd appellant was born in the wedlock on 6.9.2002.

(2.) According to the 1st petitioner at the time of marriage, her parents had given her 138 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It is alleged that all her gold ornaments were taken into custody by the respondents. The 1st respondent is her husband. Respondents 2 and 3 are the in-laws. Gold ornaments were taken with the promise that the same will be kept in the safe custody. They also opened a locker in the name of respondents 2 and 3 and she was promised that the ornaments will be kept in the locker and will be returned as and when required. In addition to the same another 17 sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to the 2nd petitioner were also obtained by the respondents and they had appropriated the same.

(3.) On account of matrimonial issues she had to live separately and thereafter she had made the aforesaid claim. The respondents denied having appropriated any of her gold ornaments as alleged. According to the respondents, they do not know how much gold ornaments she had at the time of marriage. They denied every aspect of the matter including the opening of a locker.Before the Family Court the evidence consisted of the oral testimony of PW1 to PW3 on behalf of the 1st petitioner/wife. She placed reliance on Exts.A1 to A6 series documents. RW1 and RW2 were examined on the side of the respondents and Exts. B1 to B9 are the documents relied on. Exts.X1 to X3 were summoned and marked before court.The Family Court considered the above claim along with three other cases and finally the claim of the petitioners was rejected.