KUNJUMOIDEEN Vs. ANSALNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed by respondents 2 and 3 in O.P. No. 279 of 2010 of the Family Court, Ettumanoor. The original petition is filed by the 1st respondent herein, the wife of the 2nd respondent herein. The appellants are the parents of the 2nd respondent. In the original petition it is contended that at the time of marriage between the couple, the wife was adorned with 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs. 1,50,000/- was given as parental share. According to her, the money and gold ornaments were entrusted to the respondents. But when she left the matrimonial home on 9.7.2008 on account of matrimonial issues and harassment, she was not given back the gold ornaments or the money. Respondents denied the allegations. It is submitted that the house constructed by the respondents was transferred in the name of the petitioner as per her request and she did not claim any gold ornaments or money on account of the fact that the property was assigned in her name. The evidence in the case consisted of oral testimonies of PWs. 1 to 3 on behalf of the wife and Rws. 1 to 3 on behalf of the husband. Ext. A1 and Exts. B1 to B5 were the documents relied upon. The Family Court found that the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 regarding entrustment of gold ornaments and money can be believed and accordingly, directed to return the same.

(2.) Respondents 2 and 3, i.e., the parents of the husband alone had preferred this appeal. The main contention urged is that on executing Ext. B4 in the year 2006 as a sale deed, property having an extent of 3 cents along with a building was transferred in the name of the 1st respondent/wife. The parents have only 8 cents of property in their ownership and possession, of which, 3 cents had already been assigned. After permitting the respondent/wife to reside along with their son in the building, they are residing in a small shed constructed on the other part of the remaining property. They also denied having been entrusted with any gold ornaments or money.

(3.) The petitioner had pleaded that she had entrusted her gold ornaments and money to the respondents which fact is denied by the respondents. Of course, PWs. 1 to 3 had stated that she was adorned with 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs. 1,50,000/- was given as patrimony. But what happened to her gold ornaments after entrustment has not been clearly stated by the petitioner in her pleadings. When she is living with her husband in the matrimonial home, necessarily her husband will have a say in the matter. For whose purpose the money and gold ornaments were appropriated have not been specifically stated. Normally, the gold ornaments have to be kept by the couple and if it is given to the appellants, the purpose for which it was given ought to be mentioned. There is no such case that the appellants had appropriated gold ornaments of the petitioner for a particular purpose.