AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
Facts
The first appellant is the wife of the first respondent, and the second appellant is their daughter. The second respondent is the mother of the first respondent. The first appellant and the first respondent were married on 08.02.2004 in accordance with Muhammadan law. The appellants filed a petition before the Family Court, Malappuram, seeking return of gold ornaments and money. The petitioner alleged that at the time of her marriage her parents gave her 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.1,00,000; that her Mahr was 5.25 sovereigns of gold; that she entrusted Rs.1,00,000 to the respondent on the date of marriage; that the respondent obtained 55 sovereigns of her gold ornaments for expanding his business, her Mahr ornaments, and 2 sovereigns belonging to their daughter; and that when the respondent assured he would purchase a residential plot in her name if Rs.2,00,000 was given, her father gave that amount, but the respondent purchased the property in their joint names and its value was only Rs.34,800. She claimed recovery of 62.25 sovereigns of gold or its market value, Rs.1,65,200 as the balance out of Rs.2,00,000, Rs.1,00,000 allegedly given at marriage, and Rs.6,48,000 towards past maintenance for three years for herself and her daughter. The respondents denied the allegations and contended that the petitioner did not possess the claimed gold at the time of her marriage as it was her second marriage; that she herself possessed and handled all her ornaments and had sold or pledged them for her own expenditure; that the property was purchased by the first respondent's father and the petitioner's name was included out of love and affection; that the respondent regularly maintained the petitioner and child; and that the petitioner had income from employment at an Akshaya Centre. The petitioner examined PWs 1 to 3 and marked Exts.A1 to A7. The first respondent examined himself as RW1 and produced Exts.B1 to B3 series. The trial court allowed the petition only to the extent of a decree for recovery of Rs.1,00,000 from the respondents and rejected all other claims. The trial court disallowed the gold claim mainly because PW1 had admitted that in her previous marriage she had been given only 12 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The appellants challenged that decree in this appeal.
Law Points
The following points arose for consideration in the appeal: (1) whether the petitioner is entitled to recover 62.25 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the respondents; (2) whether the petitioner is entitled to past maintenance for three years; and (3) whether the petitioner is entitled to recover Rs.1,65,200 from the respondents.
Acts & Articles
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is referred to, in connection with M.C.No.35/2019 filed by the petitioner before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri. The judgment also records that the marriage was solemnised in accordance with Muhammadan law. No specific sections of any statute and no constitutional articles are relied on in the judgment.
Judgments Referred
Not discussed in this judgment.
Obiter Dicta
The court observed that in matrimonial transactions parties may not always be in a position to state such particulars with precision at a later point of time, and noted that the petition was filed more than a decade after the marriage. It also observed that the petitioner might have retained a few items of gold ornaments for her daily use. It further observed that the discrepancies in PW3's evidence, such as absence of a licence and interpolations in the register, were not sufficient to discard his evidence altogether, though the register did not inspire confidence regarding the exact quantum.
Ratio Decidendi
The decision rests on the principle that where the wife's evidence, including the oral testimony of herself and her witnesses, substantially proves that she possessed gold ornaments at the time of marriage, and the husband admits in cross-examination that he pledged her gold ornaments contrary to his written objection, the court need not reject the entire claim merely because the exact quantity or the precise period of misappropriation is not disclosed, particularly when the matrimonial dispute is raised long after the marriage. The court can, on the evidence, determine a probable quantity of ornaments obtained by the husband and grant recovery to that extent. It also rests on the view that past maintenance may be refused where the parties were residing in the same building until 05.05.2019, and that a claim for money allegedly given for purchase of land must be proved by evidence.
Final Ruling
The appeal is allowed in part. The first respondent is directed to return 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the first petitioner/first appellant within one month, failing which she shall be entitled to recover the market value of 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments as on the date of recovery from the first respondent and his assets. The remaining part of the impugned judgment is upheld, including the trial court's decree for recovery of Rs.1,00,000 and the rejection of the other claims.
Plain-Language Gist
A wife and her daughter claimed gold ornaments and money from the wife's husband and mother-in-law. The Family Court gave only Rs.1,00,000 and rejected the rest. On appeal, the High Court found that the wife did have substantial gold at marriage and that the husband admitted pledging her ornaments, so it ordered the husband to return 20 sovereigns of gold within one month or pay their current market value, while upholding the refusal of past maintenance and the claim about Rs.2,00,000 for land.
AI-generated summary — verify against the full judgment text before relying on it in practice.
Judgment
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
A petition filed by the appellants for return of gold ornaments and money was allowed in part by the Family Court, Malappuram. The said decree is assailed in this appeal.
The first appellant is the wife of the first respondent. The second appellant is their daughter. The second respondent is the mother of the first respondent. The first appellant and the first respondent were married on 08.02.2004 in accordance with Muhammadan law. They will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner and the respondent, respectively.
The petitioner alleges that, at the time of her marriage, her parents gave her 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.1,00,000/-. Her Mahr was 5.25 sovereigns of gold. According to the petitioner, she entrusted the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,00,000/-to the respondent on the date of marriage itself. The petitioner alleges that the respondent obtained 55 sovereigns of her gold ornaments for expanding his business. He also obtained the ornaments received by her as Mahr, as well as 2 sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to their daughter. When the respondent assured her that he would purchase a residential plot in her name if Rs.2,00,000/- was given, her father accordingly gave the said amount to the respondent. However, the respondent purchased the property in the joint names of the petitioner and the respondent, contrary to the assurance, and the value of the property was only Rs.34,800/-. The petitioner thus claimed recovery of 62.25 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its market value, Rs.1,65,200/-, being the balance amount out of Rs.2,00,000/- allegedly given for purchasing the land, together with Rs.1,00,000/- allegedly given at the time of marriage. She also claimed recovery of Rs.6,48,000/-towards past maintenance for three years for herself and her daughter, alleging that the respondent had failed to maintain them.
The respondents stoutly denied the aforesaid allegations and further contended that the petitioner did not possess the gold ornaments claimed by her at the time of her marriage, as it was her second marriage. According to them, all her gold ornaments were possessed and handled by her herself, and she had either sold or pledged those ornaments to meet her own lavish expenditure. The aforesaid property was purchased by the father of the respondent, and the name of the petitioner was included in the title deed out of love and affection. The respondent further contended that he had been regularly maintaining the petitioner and the child and that the petitioner had her own income from her employment at an Akshaya Centre.
The evidence of the petitioner consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 to 3 and Exts.A1 to A7. The respondent examined himself as RW1 and produced Exts.B1 to B3 series. Upon evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court allowed the petition only to the extent of granting a decree for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondents, and rejected all the other claims.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.
The following points arise for consideration in this appeal:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to recover 62.25 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the respondents?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to past maintenance for three years?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to recover Rs.1,65,200/- from the respondents?
PW1, the petitioner, PW2, her father, and PW3, a goldsmith, were examined to prove the claims made by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a proof affidavit consistent with the claims made in the petition. Ext.A5 series of marriage photographs, together with a Compact Disc, were marked in evidence through her. PW2, her father, deposed that he had a wholesale business in dried fish at Mukkom town in a building bearing No.3/342 and that he had given 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner. According to him, the gold ornaments were purchased from PW3, K.P. Balan of Suma Gold Works, by exchanging old gold. PW3, Sri. K.P. Balan, deposed that, during 2003, while he was working at Suma Gold Works, he had supplied 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments to PW2 against old gold given by him. He produced Ext.A6 ledger. In Ext.A6, it is shown that, on 05.12.2003, PW2 obtained 60.55 sovereigns of gold ornaments from PW3. RW1, the respondent, deposed that the petitioner did not have gold ornaments as claimed in the petition at the time of her marriage and reiterated the contentions raised in the written objection.
When the oral testimony of PWs 1 to 3 is closely analysed along with Ext.A5 series of marriage photographs, it appears that the petitioner had a substantial quantity of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage, as claimed by her in the petition. Though RW1, the respondent, deposed in his evidence that most of the gold ornaments worn by the petitioner at the time of marriage were spurious gold, no such contention was raised in the written objection. Even when RW1 raised such a contention in his evidence, he did not dispute the genuineness of Ext.A5 series of marriage photographs. PWs 1 to 3 were cross-examined at length, but no material sufficient to discredit their testimony regarding the quantity of gold ornaments possessed by the petitioner at the time of her marriage was elicited. Though the learned counsel for the respondents attempted to assail the evidence of PW3 on the ground that it had come out in evidence that he had no licence during 2003, that he had no business during 2010, and that Ext.A6 register contained insertions and interpolations, we find that those aspects are not sufficient to completely discard his evidence. However, we are not prepared to accept his evidence as such in respect of the exact quantum of gold ornaments, as the register does not inspire our confidence. As contended, there are corrections in material portions of the register.
The trial court disallowed the claim made by the petitioner mainly on the ground that PW1 had admitted in cross-examination that, in her previous marriage, she had been provided with only 12 sovereigns of gold ornaments and, therefore, it could not be believed that the petitioner would have been given 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments in her second marriage. We do not find any justification for discarding the claim raised by the petitioner, which is substantially proved through the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3. In view of the aforesaid facts, it can be concluded that the petitioner would have possessed around 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage.
The petitioner claimed that her gold ornaments, together with her Mahr and 2 sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to the daughter, totalling 62.25 sovereigns, were misappropriated by the respondent. The petitioner has described the details of the gold ornaments allegedly obtained by the respondent in paragraph 2 of the petition. When we analyse the evidence of PW1 and RW1 in respect of the aforesaid claim, it is noticed that, contrary to the stand taken in the written objection, the respondent admitted during cross-examination that he had pledged gold ornaments belonging to the petitioner. Though he claimed that the pledged ornaments were subsequently redeemed, he did not produce any material before the court in support of the same. Significantly, he stated categorically that there was evidence of such redemption, including the receipt. The relevant portion of his statement reads as follows:
“ഞഞാനനും ഹരജജികഞാരജിയുടടെ കൂ ടടെ തഞാമസജിക്കുന്ന സമയത്തു ഹരജജികഞാരജിയുടടെ സസ്വർണനും 2 തവണ മഞാത്രമമ പണയനും വചജിട്ടുള്ളൂ . മഹർ, പഞാദസരനും പണയനും വച . ആയതത് തജിരജിച എടുത്തു ടകഞാടുതജിട്ടുള്ളതുമഞാണത് (witness adds ). സസ്വർണനും തജിരുടചടുത്തുടകഞാടുത്തു എന്നുള്ളതജിനത് ടതളജിവുകൾ ഉണത് . Receipt ഉണത് . എൻത്ടൻ്റെ മപരജിൽ മഞാത്രമല ഹരജജികഞാരജിയുടടെ മപരജിലനും സസ്വർണനും പണയനും വചടവന്നത് പൻ്റെഞഞാൽ ശരജിയല . എൻത്ടൻ്റെ ആവശശ്യതജിനത് വചജിടജില (witness adds).”
Though he contended in cross-examination that the gold ornaments pledged by him were the Mahr and one anklet, it is evident that what he had stated in his written objection, namely, that the gold ornaments of the petitioner were never used by him, is proved to be incorrect. On the other hand, the evidence of the petitioner in this regard is clear and categorical. However, we are not in a position to accept the entire claim put forward by the petitioner. She also admitted during cross-examination that she had pledged some of her gold ornaments at the Manjeri Co-operative Urban Bank and that, at that time, those ornaments were in her possession. Even according to the case of the petitioner, the respondent had not taken away all her gold ornaments. She might have retained a few items for her daily use.
The trial court did not allow the petitioner to recover any amount towards the gold ornaments from the respondents, observing that she had not disclosed the period during which the respondents had misappropriated her gold ornaments. In the light of the matters noted above, particularly the admission made by the respondent during cross-examination, we are not in a position to discard the case of the petitioner in its entirety for that sole reason. In matrimonial transactions, parties may not always be in a position to state such particulars with precision at a later point of time. In the present case, the petition was filed more than a decade after the marriage. Therefore, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances available on record, it is probable that the respondents obtained 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments of the petitioner.
The trial court observed that the petitioner had filed M.C.No.35/2019 before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri, under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The claim for past maintenance was rejected by the trial court, further observing that the petitioner and the respondent were residing in the same building at least until 05.05.2019. We concur with the trial court in declining the relief of past maintenance in the aforesaid circumstances.
The petitioner did not succeed in proving her claim for payment of Rs.2,00,000/- allegedly given for purchasing the land. If the father of the petitioner had possessed and paid such an amount at the time when it was allegedly given to the respondents, the same could have been established through sufficient evidence. Therefore, we uphold the finding of the trial court in that regard as well.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The first respondent is directed to return 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the first petitioner/first appellant within one month, failing which, she shall be entitled to recover the market value of 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments as on the date of recovery from the first respondent and his assets. The remaining part of the impugned judgment is upheld.