SREEDEVI Vs. C.R.ANEESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 4.5.2013 passed by the Family Court, Thrissur, in O.P.No.398 of 2006, parties on either side have come up in appeal. The reference to parties in these appeals will be in accordance with their ranks in Mat.Appeal No.557 of 2013 unless the context otherwise indicates.

(2.) O.P.No.398 of 2006 was filed by mother and her minor son, in which, the mother claimed past and future monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- from the appellant, who is her husband and first respondent in the original petition. Future maintenance alone at the rate of Rs.4,000/- was claimed on behalf of the son. She also claimed recovery of 150 sovereigns of gold ornaments or in the alternative, Rs.9 Lakhs being the market value thereof from the appellant and his mother who is the 2nd respondent in the original petition. The court below did not accept either the claim regarding gold or the maintenance in full, but granted an order for past and future monthly maintenance for the 1st respondent in this appeal only at the rate of Rs.3,000/-. So also, as regards her claim for gold ornaments, order was passed for recovery of only 125 sovereigns or in the alternative, for recovery of Rs.9 lakhs being the market value of the ornaments with 12% interest per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Her claim as against the 2nd respondent-mother in law in the original petition was dismissed. That is how both parties in O.P.No.398 of 2006 have come in appeal challenging the impugned order dated Mat.4.5.2013.

(3.) The 1st respondent/wife was married to the appellant on 3.4.2005 and the minor son who is the 2nd respondent in the appeal was born to the spouses on 24.1.2006. Her case is that at the time of marriage, she was adorned with 158 sovereigns of gold ornaments and after marriage and in the same month of April, the appellant and his mother demanded her to hand over 150 sovereigns of gold ornaments, excluding 8 sovereigns to be kept for wearing purposes. She obliged them and immediately 150 sovereigns were taken by the appellant to Manappuram Finance, Vatanappilly Branch and kept in a locker hired in his sole name. She states that on repeated occasions, she demanded ornaments for wearing during wedding ceremonies of relatives and others. But her request was turned down and finally in the month of October, 2005, when her parents had taken her for delivery also, similar demand made for return of gold ornaments was rejected. Appellant is stated to have deserted her ever since then and refused to maintain her. After the birth of 2nd respondent also, appellant did not take care of the affairs of the child. The appellant is a business man engaged in supplying building materials and earns Rs.20,000/- per month. He has several properties also in his possession. The 1 st respondent has no income of her own and she is exclusively depending on her brothers. Therefore, the 1st respondent sought monthly maintenance past and future from the appellant at the rate of Rs.5,000/- for herself and sought future maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month for the son. The gold ornaments to the tune of 150 sovereigns or its equivalent market value of Rs.9 lakhs were also sought to be recovered from the appellant and his mother.