IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 MFA.No. 436 of 2003() --------------------- OP.301/2001 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI. .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT IN THE O.P. ------------------------------------ DR. P. PADMAKUMAR, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. PADMANABHA MANNADIYAR, ASSISTANT SURGEON, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, ALIPARAMB AMSOM-DESOM P.O., ALIPARAMB. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU RESPONDENT: PETITIONER IN THE O.P. -------------------------------------- DR. S. GEETHANJALI, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O. SANKARAN NAMBEESAN, ARIYATTUR AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, P.O. ARIYALLUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.F.A. 436/2003 ORDER ON I.A. NO. 852/2003 IN M.F.A. 436/2003 // DISMISSED // 22.9.2008. SD/-, P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. SD/-, T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. // TRUE COPY // P.S.T O JUDGE. knc/- P.R. RAMAN & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.F.A. NO. 436 OF 2003 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This is an appeal against the order allowing the original petition and granting a decree for an amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- from the appellant herein with interest at 6%. O.P. 301/2001 was filed by the wife for realisation of amount due. In the wedlock of the petitioner with the respondent, a female child was born. Subsequently, their relationship strained and a petition for divorce was filed by the wife which was decreed in her favour and it has become final. Though allegedly an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- and gold ornaments worth Rs. 1,02,000/-,were said to have been obtained by the appellant the court below, on an analysis of the entire evidence adduced in the case, found that only Rs. 1,05,000/- is liable to be paid by the appellant herein. It is against the order that the present appeal is filed. 2. We have heard both sides. During the pendency of the appeal, an interim stay was granted by this court, on condition that 50% of the decree amount is deposited within one month from the date of the order. The said MFA. 436/2003 :2: order has been complied with and the amount deposited has been withdrawn by the respondent herein. The court below entered a finding that an amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- is due from the appellant herein. It has come out in evidence that a cheque for Rs. 1 lakh was issued by PW.2 to the appellant for purchase of a property in the name of the respondent as well; but later he withdrew from the same and purchased another plot. During the cross examination, it is admitted that a property with a house was purchased in the name of the appellant and this was after Ext.B1 cheque dated 30.6.2000. The court below also found that there is nothing on record to show that the cheque was issued in discharge of any liability of PW.2. Therefore, the cheque issued in favour of the appellant for an amount of Rs. 1 lakh was found to be for the purpose of the registration of sale deed and for reconstruction of the house in the newly purchased plot etc. Therefore, it was found that the appellant is bound to return the said amount. The finding as arrived at by the court below is based on appreciation of the evidence on record and we do not find any ground to interfere with the said order. In the circumstances, we direct that the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) shall also be deposited within a period of one month from today before the court below, in which event, there will not be MFA. 436/2003 :3: any liability on the appellant to pay any interest thereon. However, if he commits any default he will be liable to pay interest as directed by the court below. The appeal is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) knc/-