JAYANTHI KUMARI vs ANILKUMAR & ANR.

Appellant is the plaintiff in a suit. The suit was filed before the family court, Kottarakkara. The claim in the suit was return of money and gold

ornaments.

The case of the plaintiff is briefly stated as follows: Her marriage with the first defendant was solemnized on 5.9.1997. A baby boy was born in

the wedlock. Ten sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs 50,000/- were given to the plaintiff by her parents for her well-being. Her money and gold

ornaments were appropriated by the first defendant and his mother, the second defendant. The life of the plaintiff in her matrimonial home was

miserable. She is entitled to the return of her Rs 50,000 and 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments.

The defendants filed written-statement contending as under: The plaintiff did not have 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of her

marriage. There was no payment of Rs 50,000/- on her side to the defendants for her well-being. She brought only 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments

and 10 vessels. Out of the vessels, three vessels were taken by the sister of the plaintiff. Out of the 5 sovereigns of ornaments she brought, 21/2

sovereigns of ornaments were sold by herself and her mother to meet the need of her sister. Her remaining ornaments are with her. There was no

ill-treatment or harassment meted out to her from the defendants.

The family court tried three cases jointly. Both sides adduced evidence. PWs 1 to 4 and CPWs 1 to 5 were examined. Exts A1, B1 to B6 and

X1 to X4 were marked.

The family court did not accept the case of the plaintiff that there was a payment of Rs 50,000/- to the defendants at the time of the marriage.

The case of the plaintiff that her gold ornaments were taken and appropriated by the defendants was also not acceptable to the family court.

However, a decree for Rs 25,000/- with interest was granted in view of the admission of the first defendant during crossexamination that Rs

25,000/- was given from the side of the bride for the purpose of meeting the expenses of the marriage.

We heard Sri.Vinoy Varghese Kallumoottil and Sri Saju S.A, the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants respectively.

The plaintiff was the wife of the first defendant at the time of filing of the suit. Their marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce granted in OP

203/2005. To the plaintiff and first defendant were born a baby boy. The relationship went unfriendly. We in the present appeal are not at all

concerned with the reason for the hostility. We are only concerned with the claim of the plaintiff that money and gold ornaments of hers were

appropriated by the defendants.

The family court refused to grant a decree as prayed for unable to believe the case presented by the plaintiff. Her case was that on her behalf Rs

50,000/- was given to the defendants. It was also her case that she wore 10 soverigns of gold ornaments at the time of the marriage. She had a

further case that during the initial days of the marriage her entire gold ornaments were taken from her by the defendants and appropriated the same.

The case of taking and appropriating the gold ornaments was not acceptable to the learned family court judge. The learned judge considered Ext

B6(b) photograph and Ext B4 identity card issued by the Election Commission of India. The objection against marking of Ext B6 (b) photograph

was that its negative film was not produced. The said objection cannot stand in view of Sec.14 of the Family Courts Act. In Ext B6(b) photograph

you can see the plaintiff carrying her son aged about two years. You can also see the plaintiff wearing a necklace, a gold chain and a few bangles.

The evidence of her mother as PW2 was that the 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments given at the time of the marriage were in the shapes of a

necklace, a gold chain and a few bangles. As you see in the photograph the plaintiff wearing the necklace, gold chain and bangles, one cannot

accept the case of the plaintiff that her every ornament was taken and appropriated by the defendants during the initial days of the marriage. You

can see the photograph of the plaintiff in Ext B4 election identity card too. You see there too the necklace and the chain besides studs on her ears.

The photographs belie the case of the plaintiff that her ornaments were taken immediately after the marriage and appropriated.

The case of payment of Rs 50,000/- for the well-being of the plaintiff by her parents was also not accepted by the family court. The plaintiff did

not have a consistent case. She gave an FI statement before the police. A copy of it is Ext B1. It shows that the case at that time was the bringing

of Rs 1,00,000/- and 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of the marriage. The amount of Rs 1,00,000/-, going by the recitals in the FI

statement, was in the shape of bank deposit. The case in Ext B1 was not that the plaintiff brought Rs 50,000/- and 10 sovereigns of gold

ornaments. There must be satisfactory explanation for the inconsistency pointed out above. But the plaintiff did not have any explanation. It is

therefore unsafe to rely on the evidence of PW1 to decree her claim. We are in agreement with the learned family court judge that the plaintiff

failed to prove the bringing of Rs 50,000/- and the appropriation of 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments.

The first defendant while giving evidence as CPW1 admitted having received Rs 25,000/- from the parents of the plaintiff. According to

CPW1, the amount was given and received for the purpose of meeting the expenses of the marriage. The expenses for the marriage of the first

defendant should be met by him. Receipt of Rs 25,000/- as expenses of the marriage is dowry within the meaning of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It

is a returnable property under Sec.6 of the said Act. The family court rightly granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff for Rs 25,000/-. The said

decree shall be retained.

Having considered the appeal, we find little scope for any interference. The appeal deserves only a dismissal. In the circumstances of the case,

we make no order as to costs.

Dismissed. No costs.