MANOJ VARGHESE Vs. DIVYA SUSAN THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants suffered a decree for payment of Rs. 3 lakhs with interest and for recovery of 45.40 sovereigns of gold ornaments, passed by the Family Court, Pathanamthitta in O.P.612/2014 instituted by the sole respondent herein seeking recovery of Rs. 3 lakh with interest and also value of gold ornaments weighing 60 sovereigns. The respondent has not filed any appeal challenging the partial refusal of her claim. Being aggrieved by the decree, the appellants have come up in appeal.

(2.) The 1st appellant is the husband of the respondent and the appellants 2 and 3 are his parents. The 1st appellant married the respondent on 9.1.2018 and two girl children were born to them. These facts are not in dispute. Before the marriage, there was a betrothal function arranged on 5.1.2008 at the Auditorium of St.George Orthodox Church, Mylapra. Her case is that, on 5.1.2008 her father entrusted a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs drawn from his account with the Federal Bank, Pathanamthitta to the 2nd appellant, the father of the 1st appellant. The amount was entrusted for the welfare and maintenance of the respondent and the appellants were bound under law to keep the amount as her trustees. She adorned 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of the marriage, given to her by parents. Immediately after the marriage, at the request of all the respondents, 51 sovereigns of gold ornaments except a few wearing ornaments were kept in the bank locker of respondents 2 and 3. The 1st appellant was employed abroad. During her stay with him, on 18.3.2008 he forced her to part with the gold ornaments weighing 9 sovereigns and he misappropriated them for his own use. In 2011, the appellants pledged 51 sovereigns kept in the bank locker for their private needs. The relationship between the parties gradually strained and alleging all the above facts, the respondent filed the original petition, No.612/2014, for return of Rs. 3 lakhs with interest and for recovery of 60 sovereigns from the appellants.

(3.) The appellants denied the entrustment of Rs. 3 lakhs at the betrothal function, as alleged. They denied having made any demand for money in connection with the marriage of respondent with 1st appellant. However, they admitted the entrustment of gold ornaments with them and stated that same were kept in their bank locker, right in the presence of the respondent. But at the same time they pleaded ignorance of the exact weight of the gold ornaments entrusted and kept in the bank locker. The allegation that on 18.3.2008 the respondent entrusted 9 sovereigns of gold ornaments with 1st appellant while she was abroad, was also denied.