AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—This appeal arises out of the judgment of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor in OP No. 219/11. The OP was filed by the appellant herein seeking return of Rs. 5,00,000/- and 78.5 sovereigns of gold which was allegedly given to the respondent at the time of her marriage. This claim was rejected in total by the Family Court. It is aggrieved by this judgment, the appeal has been filed. In so far as the claim for return of Rs. 5,00,000/- is concerned, it has been held by the Family Court in para 10 of the judgment that "no scrap of paper is there to show payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the respondent from the house of the petitioner". The appellant has no case that any documentary evidence in this behalf was produced. On the other hand, argument addressed was mainly on the basis that the appellant''s father was a flourishing agriculturist who was an Agricultural Income Tax Assessee and had the capacity to make payment.
In our view, even if it is assumed that the appellant''s father was a resourceful person and an Agricultural Income Tax Assessee, that does not automatically lead to the inference that at the time of her marriage with the respondent, he was given Rs. 5,00,000/- as claimed. In other words, there was total failure on the part of the appellant in producing any evidence substantiating her claim.
Now coming to the claim that 78.5 sovereigns of gold were given, here again, absolutely no evidence was produced to substantiate this contention. In such circumstances, this finding of the Family Court also cannot be said to be illegal. For the aforesaid reasons, in the absence of any evidence produced by the appellant substantiating her case of having paid Rs. 5,00,000/- and given 78.5 sovereigns of gold at the time of her marriage, we are unable to find any illegality in the judgment of the Family Court justifying interference in an appeal.
Appeal is dismissed.