Reshna vs Baiju K.K.

C.S.Sudha, J.

This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 09/05/2023 in O.P.No.193/2018 on the file of the Family Court, Tirur. The respondents herein are the respondents in the original petition. The parties in this appeal will be referred to as described in the original petition.

The petitioners two in number are the wife and minor son of the first respondent in O.P.No.193/2018. The marriage between the first petitioner and the first respondent was solemnised on 25/10/2009 as per the rites and customs of the community to which they belong. The second and third respondents are the parents of the first respondent. At the time of marriage, 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments and household articles worth ₹40,000/- were gifted to the first petitioner by her parents. Immediately after the marriage, all the gold ornaments except a few ornaments for the daily use of the first petitioner were entrusted to the second and third respondents for safe-keeping as per the direction of the first respondent. After the birth of the second petitioner, 3¾ sovereigns of gold ornaments was given by the first petitioner's father to the child. The same as well as the gold ornaments of the first petitioner have been misappropriated by the respondents. The marital life between the first petitioner and the first respondent was never smooth. The first respondent was having mental issues. However, the respondents alleging that the first petitioner was suffering from mental disorder, compelled her to undergo counselling making others believe that she had some mental disorders. The first petitioner was also forced to take medicines alleging so. The respondents had even taken the first petitioner before a black-magician alleging that she had some mental disorder. At the time of the marriage, the first respondent was working as an accountant in a furniture shop by name 'Tiptop' at Kottakkal. He used to come home only for four days in a month. Even on those rare occasions that he used to come home, the first respondent was not interested in talking to the first petitioner or having a marital life with her. She was mentally and physically assaulted and harassed by the first respondent and his parents during her stay in the matrimonial home. Due to the acts of cruelty by the respondents, the first petitioner was forced to leave her matrimonial home even before the birth of the second petitioner. Thereafter at the intervention of mediators, the petitioners were brought back to the house of the respondents.

2.1. During the period from 2012-'15, the petitioners were residing in the house of the first petitioner at which time the first respondent never attempted to contact her. Subsequently at the intervention of the Legal Services Authority, the matter was settled between the parties and the petitioners were taken to a new house in which they started living together. However, there was no improvement in the life of the petitioners. The first respondent continued to ignore the first petitioner and her child. When the first petitioner and the first respondent started residing in the new home, a dining table and chairs worth ₹30,000/- was given by the petitioner's father as demanded by the first respondent. The first respondent was suffering from some mental illness and it was suppressing the said fact, he had married the first petitioner. After misappropriating the gold ornaments and the valuable articles given by her parents, the first respondent has deserted the first petitioner. From June 2017 onwards the petitioners are residing separately. The first petitioner has no income of her own. She needs ₹10,000/- for her monthly expenses and the second petitioner requires ₹5,000/- towards his maintenance. The first respondent is liable to pay maintenance from 13/06/2017 onwards. He has a monthly income of about ₹60,000/-. Hence on the ground that the respondents had misappropriated her gold ornaments and household articles, the petitioners moved O.P.No.193/2018 for return of the same and also claiming past maintenance. She also moved M.C.No.107/2018 claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The respondents filed objections denying the allegation of harassment and ill-treatment on the first petitioner. According to them, the first petitioner was never given 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments or household articles worth ₹40,000/- as alleged by her. The gold ornaments were never entrusted to the respondents. They have not misappropriated the gold ornaments of the first petitioner. The allegation that the first respondent had some mental disorders is incorrect and false. Actually it was the first petitioner, who was having some mental issues. It was not due to the mental or physical harassment of the first petitioner by the respondents that she started residing with her parents. It was on her own volition she had left the matrimonial home. The allegation that she was subjected to counselling and forcibly taken to a black-magician is incorrect and false. No such attempts were made by the respondents. No household articles were received from the petitioner. The allegation that the first respondent is earning ₹60,000/-per month is incorrect and false. In fact, the first petitioner is working as a teacher and earning a salary of ₹6,000/- per month. She is giving tuitions and earning not less than ₹9,000/- per month on the said count also. The claim for maintenance is quite exorbitant. The first petitioner is not entitled to any maintenance as she is residing away from the first respondent without any reasonable cause. As the respondents have not misappropriated any of the gold ornaments or the household articles of the first petitioner, she is not entitled to the relief of return of the same, contended the respondents.

On completion of pleadings, the parties went to trial. PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ext.A1 was marked on the side of the petitioners. RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B7 were marked on the side of the respondents. The trial court on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, by the impugned judgment, partly allowed O.P.No.193/2018 by which the claim for return of a dining table and 6 chairs or its value of ₹30,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the order till the date of payment has been allowed. The first respondent has been directed to return the household articles or its cash value of ₹40,000/-with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of order till the date of payment to the first petitioner. The first respondent has also been directed to pay ₹36,000/-to the first petitioner and ₹27,000/- to the second petitioner towards past maintenance for nine months. The claim for return of gold ornaments has been declined. Aggrieved, the petitioners have come up in appeal.

The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the court below calling for an interference by this Court.

Heard the appellants/petitioners.

The respondents denied the allegation of entrustment of the gold ornaments to them. There appears to have been no serious dispute relating to the case of the petitioner that she had 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of the marriage. The main dispute was regarding the question of entrustment. According to the respondents, the first petitioner had never entrusted the gold ornaments to the second and third respondents under the instructions of the first respondent. The respondents relied on Ext.B3 as well as Ext.B4 and Ext.B5 photographs to disprove her case. Ext.B3 is admittedly a photograph taken when the petitioner was taken back to her house for delivery. In Ext.B3, the petitioner was found wearing almost all the gold ornaments that were worn by her at the time of marriage, as is seen from Ext.A1 photograph. Exts.B4 and B5 photographs were taken in connection with the engagement of the first petitioner's brother. These photographs also show that the first petitioner was wearing most of the jewellery that she was wearing at the time of her marriage. Her specific case in the petition is that immediately after the marriage, except a few ornaments kept for daily use, the entire gold ornaments had been entrusted to respondents 2 and 3 for safe-keeping as directed by her husband/the first respondent. This case is disproved by Ext.B3 to Ext.B5 photographs. It has also come out in evidence as the parties were unable to get along, they were residing separately from the year 2012 onwards. Thereafter, in the year 2015, through the intervention of the Legal Services Authority the dispute between the parties were settled and the first petitioner returned along with her child and started residing in a rented house with the first respondent. The case of the petitioner and her father, who was examined as PW2, is that when the petitioner and the first respondent started residing together in the year 2015 after the settlement of disputes, the gold ornaments were again entrusted back to respondents 2 and 3. This story of the petitioners was disbelieved by the trial court. We find that the trial court has rightly rejected the said case of the petitioners because that is not the case of the petitioners in the petition. As noticed earlier, her specific case was that immediately after the marriage, except a few ornaments all the other ornaments had been entrusted with respondents 2 and 3 for safe-keeping. However, this case of the first petitioner was belied by Exts.B3 to B5 photographs. It is admitted that the parties fell-out and for about three years, they were residing separately. The disputes were settled and Ext.B1 agreement was executed between the first petitioner and the first respondent relating to the settlement of disputes and then they started residing together from 2015 onwards. It appears that they continued to reside together till the year 2017 when again the parties fell-out and started residing separately. A new case was attempted to be brought out in the evidence that when the first petitioner returned to her matrimonial home in the year 2015, the gold ornaments were returned by the first petitioner's father to respondents 2 and 3, which is quite difficult to believe. As rightly noted by the trial court, Ext.B1 agreement executed between the parties when the disputes between them were settled, there is no mention about the misappropriation of gold ornaments. It was also noticed by the trial court that similar is the case in Ext.B7 petition filed before the Legal Services Authority, Tirur. The said petition was filed on 11/02/2015. In the same also there is no case that the gold ornaments had been misappropriated by the respondents. Taking into account all these aspects, the trial court disbelieved the case of the petitioners regarding entrustment of gold ornaments. We went through the entire judgment as well as the depositions of PW1, PW2 and RW2, the copies of which were furnished to us by the learned counsel for the petitioners. We find no infirmity in the findings of the trial court calling for an interference by this Court relating to the claim regarding return of gold ornaments.

According to the petitioners, the first respondent has got a monthly income of ₹60,000/- and hence claimed maintenance @₹10,000/-for the first petitioner and ₹5,000/- for the second petitioner. The trial court after analysing the evidence, fixed the past maintenance at ₹4,000/- to the first petitioner and ₹3,000/- to the second petitioner. Though the first petitioner has taken up a contention that the first respondent is earning about ₹60,000/- per month, it appears that no evidence was adduced to substantiate the same. In such circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the trial court relating to the quantum of past maintenance also. That being the position, we find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.