Ummer vs Saisa

C.S.Sudha, J.

This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, has been filed by the respondent/husband against the order dated 02/02/2021 in O.P.No.326/2016 on the file of the Family Court, Ottappalam. The respondents herein are the petitioners in the original petition. The parties in this appeal will be referred to as described in the original petition.

O.P.No.326/2016 was filed by the petitioners alleging thus - the marriage between the first petitioner and first respondent was solemnised on 20/06/2002 as per the rites and customs of the community to which they belong. In the wedlock, two children are born. The second petitioner is the second son of the couple. At the time of marriage, the first petitioner was given 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹50,000/- by her family. On the date of the marriage itself, the said ₹50,000/- was taken by the respondent/husband. After a few days of the marriage, the respondent started quarreling with the first petitioner. Due to unwarranted interference by the respondent's family, the first petitioner and the respondent were constrained to shift to a rented house. While so, the respondent purchased 8½ cents of property in his name by utilising 20½ sovereigns of gold ornaments of the first petitioner. The respondent went abroad in the year 2006. He used to come home once in two years. During the said visits also, there were frequent quarrels between the couple. In the year 2012, the respondent sold the 8½ cents of property and purchased 15 cents of property by utilizing the sale proceeds. He again purchased 7½ cents of property by utilizing 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments of the second petitioner. Thereafter the respondent gave up his job abroad, returned to his native place and started a business in the name and style 'Curtain Centre'. He started earning substantial income from the said business. By January 2015, the marital relationship between the parties broke down. The respondent on 25/05/2015 left the petitioner and the child at her parental home and never returned. At that time, the respondent had forcibly taken away a gold chain weighing 3 sovereigns which was given as mehar to the petitioner. On 29/05/2015 the respondent pronounced talaq. However, he has not returned the gold ornaments of the first petitioner or the amount of ₹50,000/- that was received by him at the time of marriage. He has not paid any amount to the first petitioner to which she is legally entitled to. On 01/02/2016, in the mediation that took place before the mosque committee, the respondent had agreed to pay an amount of ₹3,25,000/- to the first petitioner towards the household articles, gold ornaments and the amount received by him. Agreeing to the same, he had also executed an agreement dated 15/03/2016. However, the respondent has not complied with the same so far. The first petitioner hence claimed the return of 28½ sovereigns of gold ornaments misappropriated by the respondent or its cost of ₹6,27,000/- as well as ₹50,000/- from the respondent and his assets. As the first petitioner has no employment or income, she claimed maintenance at the rate of ₹10,000/-per month and ₹8,000/- as maintenance for the said petitioner.

The respondent/husband filed objection denying the allegation that he had used the gold ornaments of the petitioner or the amount of ₹50,000/- for purchase of the property in his name. No gold ornaments of the first petitioner had ever been appropriated by the respondent. In fact the first petitioner was only given 7 sovereigns of gold ornaments by her parents. The marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent was a love marriage and hence there was never any demand for gold ornaments. The properties that were purchased in the name of respondent was by utilizing his own funds. Though the respondent in the year 2012 started a business in the name and style 'Curtain Centre', the same had to be closed down due to loss. The respondent is now working as a tailor. The allegation that the respondent had forcibly taken away the mehar chain from the first petitioner is incorrect and false. During the initial days of the marriage, the relationship between the parties was very cordial. However, after the birth of the first child, the attitude of the first petitioner towards the respondent changed considerably. She started an extra marital relationship with one Noushad, her cousin. On 25/05/2015, the first petitioner left the matrimonial home with the youngest child after taking her gold ornaments and an amount of ₹23,000/- which was kept in the house. As the first petitioner is leading an adulterous life with Noushad, the respondent on 29/05/2015 pronounced talaq whereby the marital relationship between the parties has been dissolved. Till January 2016, the children were residing along with the respondent. Later, on the interaction of the Mahal Committee, the custody of the younger child has been taken by the first petitioner. While the respondent was working abroad, the first petitioner had withdrawn more than ₹8 lakhs from his account. She had undergone a beautician course at the expense of the respondent and now she is conducting a beauty parlour and getting an income of about ₹15,000/- per month. The first petitioner is capable of maintaining herself and she is not dependent on her parents as alleged by her. The respondent is getting only ₹10,000/- per month from his tailoring job. The allegation that he is getting an amount of ₹40,000/- per month from his curtain business is incorrect and false. The elder child is in the custody of the respondent. The respondent is ready to look after the second petitioner also. The amount claimed as maintenance is excessive and exorbitant. As the respondent has not misappropriated any of the gold ornaments or money of the first petitioner, the petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for, contended the respondent.

On completion of pleadings, the parties went to trial. PW1 to PW5 were examined and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the petitioner. RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B10 were marked on the side of respondent. The trial court on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, by the impugned judgment, allowed the petition by which the respondent has been directed to return 28½ sovereigns of gold ornaments or its cost of ₹6,27,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of order till realisation; ₹50,000/-with 6% interest from the date of order till realisation; a decree for past maintenance @ ₹3,000/- per month to the first petitioner and ₹2,500/- to the second petitioner from 29/05/2015 till the date of filing the petition, that is, 25/06/2016 and future monthly maintenance at the aforesaid rates to the petitioners from 26/06/2016 onwards. Aggrieved, the respondent/husband has come up in appeal.

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

Heard.

The petitioner in order to prove her case that she had 28½ sovereigns of gold ornaments, examined herself as PW1 as well as PW4 and PW5 who are none other than the sister of the respondent and father of PW1. The trial court noticed that even PW4, the sister of the respondent, supported the case of the petitioner that she in fact had 28½ sovereigns of gold ornaments. On going through the impugned judgment we find a detailed discussion of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties in support of their respective cases. The trial court found that the testimony of PW1 and PW5 despite extensive cross examination, had not been discredited in any way. The evidence on record showed that the petitioner did have 28½ sovereigns of gold ornaments. Though the respondent took up a contention that the properties purchased after the marriage were by using his own funds, the evidence on record showed otherwise. In such circumstances, the trial court accepted the version of the petitioner that it was her gold ornaments that were used for the purchase of the property in the name of the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent/husband was not able to show in what manner the findings and conclusions arrived at by the trial court or in what manner the appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence by the trial court, is incorrect. That being the position, we do not find any reason(s) to disagree with the findings and conclusions arrived at by the trial court.

As far as maintenance is concerned, a reasonable amount has been awarded. The first petitioner had claimed maintenance @ ₹10,000/-per month and ₹8,000/- per month to the second petitioner. However, the trial court has granted maintenance @ ₹3,000/- per month to the first petitioner and ₹2,500/- to the second petitioner, which amounts we find are quite reasonable. As we find no infirmity in the findings or conclusions of the trial court, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the same.

In the result, the appeal is found to be without any merits and hence the same is dismissed.

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.