IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Mat.Appeal.No. 873 of 2011(A) ----------------------------- OP.10/2010 of FAMILY COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER(S): -------------------------------------------- BIJI, D/O.VASU, AGED 28 YEARS, KUZHIYARAKULANGARA HOUSE, 200 ACRE KARA, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.BABU SEBASTIAN (NIRAPPEL). RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. AJIMON, S/O.RAJAPPAN, AGED 30 YEARS, KUNNEL HOUSE, PARATHODU KARA, KONNATHADY VILLAGE, PIN - 685 571. 2. KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.KUNJAN, AGED 65 YEARS, KUNNEL HOUSE, PARATHODU KARA, KONNATHADY VILLAGE, PIN - 685 571. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN (CAVEATOR) THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & C.T.Ravikumar, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mat.Appeal No.873 of 2011-A = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of December, 2011. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.The appellant is the wife of the first respondent. The second respondent is the maternal grandfather of the first respondent. She sued them on the allegation that gold belonging to her in the form of ornaments stood entrusted with them and that has not been returned though the matrimonial home has failed. The court below, marshelling the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there is nothing on record to hold that the second respondent, the maternal grandfather of the first respondent could be mulcted with the responsibility. It, therefore, passed a decree as against the husband. MA873/11 -: 2 :- 2.This appeal is only to the extent of finding that the maternal grandfather of the husband is not liable. 3.The court below has rightly found that Ext.B1 complaint makes accusation only against the husband and not his maternal grandfather. On the face of the clear statements in Ext.A2 in that regard, we can only hold that there was no enstrustment with the second respondent. Ext.A3 is a document signed as minutes of the SNDP Union Committee. In clause 4 thereof, there is a statement that the maternal grandfather of the husband would effect some transfer of property to the first respondent and the appellant. That is not a subject matter of this litigation which is exclusively on the question of return of ornaments entrusted in trust. Hence, while clarifying that neither the judgment of the court below nor this judgment has any MA873/11 -: 3 :- bearing on any right that the appellant may have even on the basis of the said clause in Ext.A3, we do not find any merit in this matrimonial appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. LCRs will be retransmitted to the court below appropriately. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. C.T.Ravikumar, Judge. Sha/