IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 Mat.Appeal.No. 16 of 2004() --------------------------- OP.31/2002 of FAMILY COURT,MANJERI. .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------- CHONERI RAMLA, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O. ALVAI, ARIYALLUR AMSOM AND DESOM, THIRURANGADI TALUK, ARIYALLUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. ABDUL NAZER, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY, VAKERI THEKKE THONNIYIL HOUSE PALLIKKAT AMSOM, DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 2. VAKERI THEKKE THONNIYIL MUHAMMED KUTTY, AGED 56 YEARS, VAKERI THEKKE THONNIYIL HOUSE, PALLIKKAL AMSOM, DESOM, THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. UNNEEMA, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O. WAKERI THEKKE THONNIYIL HOUSE, PALLIKKAL AMSOM AND DESOM, PALLIKKAL P.O., TIRURANGADI. ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN FOR R1 TO 3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- Mat. Appeal No. 16 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant,J. This appeal is preferred against the order of the Family Court dismissing a claim filed by the appellant/petitioner/wife for recovery of money and ornaments. The wife asserted that 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and an amount of Rs.50,000/- were handed over to the respondents at the time of her marriage. The respondents are her husband and parents-in-law. She claimed return of the said ornaments and amount in the O.P. 2. The application was resisted. Liability to return ornaments and amount was disputed. Parties went to trial on such contentions. The claimant/wife examined herself as P.W.1. A Mediator who had allegedly intervened to settle the dispute was examined as P.W.2. On the side of the respondents, the 1st Mat. Appeal No. 16 of 2004 -: 2 :- respondent/husband examined himself as R.W.1. Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. 3. The Family Court, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 read along with Exts.A1 to A4 and the evidence of R.W.1 is not sufficient to accept the claim of the appellant/ petitioner. Accordingly, the court below proceeded to dismiss the petition. 4. The appellant has come to this Court aggrieved by the rejection of her claim. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondents reported no instructions. Thereafter, the respondents have not appeared. They have not chosen to engage any other counsel. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the oral evidence of P.W.1 read along with other pieces of evidence must have instilled the satisfaction in the mind of the court below that the claim is true and valid. The court below should have accepted the same. However, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are tell tale admissions in the hand writing of the 1st respondent wherein he has admitted the Mat. Appeal No. 16 of 2004 -: 3 :- fact that gold ornaments of the claimant/appellant are available with him. The learned counsel contends that there was an omission on the part of the appellant to produce that document before the court below. The same has been produced before us in I.A.No.1670/10. We have heard the learned counsel. We are persuaded to agree that this document can be received as an additional document under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant now prays that the appellant may be given an opportunity to adduce further evidence by remand. This document produced along with I.A.No.1670/10 has to be formally introduced into evidence and the response of the respondents has to be solicited. R.W.1 has to be cross-examined with the help of the letter/document produced along with I.A.No.1670/10. In these circumstances, the learned counsel prays that an opportunity may be given to the appellant to adduce further evidence by remand. 7. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is true that from 21/7/03 to 22/6/10 this document was not produced before this Court. The same was not produced before the court below also. Notwithstanding the Mat. Appeal No. 16 of 2004 -: 4 :- omission/failure on that aspect, we are satisfied that the document can be received and the matter can be sent back to the court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law subject, of course, to appropriate conditions. Such conditions shall be imposed which shall ensure that the appellant is not permitted to take advantage of her own lethargy and inaction. 8. In the result: (a) This appeal is allowed in part. (b) I.A.No.1670/10 is allowed. The document produced along with the said I.A. is received. (c) The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving the parties opportunity to adduce further evidence including opportunity to re-call the witnesses already examined and to further examine them in chief and cross. 9. The Registry shall send back the records to the court below forthwith. We direct that the document produced along with I.A.No.1670/10 along with a copy of that I.A. shall also be sent back to the court below immediately. 10. The parties shall appear before the court below on Mat. Appeal No. 16 of 2004 -: 5 :- 3/8/10. The Family Court shall dispose of the case afresh as expeditiously as possible - at any rate, within a period of 6 months from the date of such appearance. Fresh notice shall be issued to respondents 1 to 3 by the court below. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge