Happy K Alphonse vs Santhosh P.J

Amit Rawal, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2022 in O.P.(RM)No.268 of 2020 of the Family Court, Thodupuzha whereby the claim of the appellant/wife has been partly allowed.

Succinctly the facts in brief are that the marriage between the appellant/wife and 1st respondent/husband was solemnized on 21.05.2011 at St.Mary's Church, Poovakkulam as per the religious rites and rituals. At the time of marriage she was alleged to have been given 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹2,00,000/- as per paternal share, which were entrusted to the respondents as trustees. Subsequent to the marriage parties resided together. But the marital relationship was not smooth and started living separately. When the demand for return of the aforementioned gold ornaments i.e. 15 sovereigns and ₹2,00,000/-, was not acceded to aforementioned petition was filed. It was also alleged that some dowry articles of ₹80,500/- were also given. Respondents objected the aforementioned petition and denied the entrustment of ₹2,00,000/- and 15 sovereigns, but admitted that only ₹1,00,000/- was given as the status of the family of the appellant/wife was not of that level.

Since the parties were at variance the trial court framed the following issues/points of determination:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree for return of gold ornaments weighing 15 sovereigns or its value of Rs.5,55,000/-with interest as prayed for?

Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of realization of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest as prayed for ?

Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree realizing Rs.1,00,000/- with interest as prayed for ?

Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree for the return of household articles or its value of Rs.80,500/- with interst as prayed for ?

Reliefs and costs ?

Appellant/wife examined herself as PW1 whereas the respondents examined RW1-Santhosh P.J., RW2-Benny Joseph and RW3-Marykunju Benny. Except her self sworn statement, brought on record two documents, Ext.A1 certificate of marriage and Ext.A2 album of the marriage. Trial Court on the analysis of the evidence brought on record partly decreed the petition.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence that there was a categoric assertion and averment qua receipt of ₹2,00,000/- and 15 sovereigns of gold and have gone unrebutted in the cross-examination. Respondent/husband admitted the receipt of articles of ₹80,500/-, thus there is misreading of the document.

We have heard counsel for the appellant and appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force on merit. Husband's witness RW1 to RW3 admitted that there was entrustment of ₹1,00,000/-and also of articles bearing ₹80,500/-. Except the self sworn-in statement of the appellant, no other corroborative or circumstantial evidence to fortify the allegation made in the petition. The Court had no other option but to believe the admission of the respondent, partly decreed. We do not find any justification warranting interference to form a different view than the one arrived at by the trial court on the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence.

No ground for interference is made out, appeal stands dismissed.