SMITHA YALTHO Vs. DEEPU JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P.No. 597/2004 of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. The suit was filed for recovery of money on the allegation that the claim amount equivalent to Rs.80,90,625/- has been expended by the petitioner's parents for and on behalf of the 1st respondent as per the arrangement between them even prior to the marriage. The Family Court dismissed the said claim against which this appeal is filed.

(2.) The short facts of the case are as under and the parties are described as shown in the original petition unless otherwise stated: The petitioner and the 1st respondent got married on 23.5.1998 as per Christian religious rites and ceremonies. Respondents 2 and 3 are parents of 1st respondent. The petitioner and the parents at the relevant time were residents of Canada. Petitioner as well as the 1st respondent had completed their medical graduation. The contention urged by the petitioner was that even before marriage there was an understanding that the future studies of the 1st respondent in India as well as abroad has to be met by the petitioner's family. That apart, an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) was paid to the 1st respondent on 25.5.1998 as her parental share. The said amount was appropriated by the 1st respondent. After marriage they lived together in the parental house of 1st respondent and thereafter both of them moved to Christian Medical Mission Hospital, Vellore where petitioner did one year internship and the 1st respondent did his post-graduation for 10 months and thereafter they came back to Kerala and resided together. In August 1999 petitioner left to Canada and thereafter the petitioner sponsored the 1st respondent to migrate to Canada and from September 1999 they resided together at Canada. The 1st respondent joined a preparation course to do post graduation course at Toronto for 7 months and its entire expenditure was met by petitioner's father for his stay and study. Both of them came back from Toronto to Edmonton during August, 2000 and resided with petitioner's parents for two years seeking medical placement. During May, 2001 petitioner got selection for a two year family practice training program. In June 2002, the 1st respondent moved to Chicago and all the expenses were met by the petitioner's parents. Later matrimonial issues developed between the parties and they started living separately. It is contended that a total amount of Rs.80,90,625/- was expended for the 1st respondent, which she claimed back.

(3.) The 1st respondent in his objection denied that the matrimonial issues had occurred on account of his problem, whereas he alleged that she was having some chronic skin condition. He contended that Rs.6,00,000/- given was spent by the petitioner herself during her study at Vellore and for undergoing internship and it was not the parental share. All his expenses were met by respondents 2 and 3. He proceeded to Canada on a hope that her disease may cure. Further he contended that he was having part time job and he met his expenditure with that earning and even paid income tax and the amount spent by both of them cannot be treated as parental share. He therefore denied the claim. He had filed a case before the Circuit Court of Illinois. Later she agreed for divorce and had put forward certain claims which are pending before the said court.