IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932 AS.No. 1058 of 1998() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CMC NO.73/1995 OS.86/1993 of ADDL.SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): DEFENDANT: ---------------------------------------------- V.R.PRASANNAN, S/O. RUDRANI, PARAMBIL VEETTIL, SOUTH ARYAD MURI, ARYAD SOUTH VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------------- 1. GIRIJA, D/O.INDIRA KOCHUKUTTY PARAMBIL VEETTIL, THODAMKULANGARA WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. VAISAKA, S/O. PRASANNAN, PARAMBIL VEETTIL, THODAMKULANGARA WARD, ALAPPUZHA- MINOR - REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CMP.NO.1661/1996 IN AS.NO.1058/1998 DISMISSED 7/10/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ----------------------------------------- A.S NO. 1058 OF 1998 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Alappuzha in O.S.No.86 of 1993. The estranged wife had filed a suit for realisation of Rs.20,000/- paid to the husband at the time of marriage and also for return of 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments as well as for maintenance. The trial court granted a decree with respect to Rs.20,000/- and 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It is against that decision the defendant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had married the first plaintiff as per custom in 1983 and a child had been born in that wedlock. The relationship between the husband and wife got strained and the husband used to treat the wife with cruelty, ultimately which led to separate living. During the period of living together the husband had appropriated Rs.20,000/- given to him at the time of marriage and also appropriated 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments granted at the time of the marriage. It is true that the word used in the plaint is dowry but A.S NO. 1058 OF 1998 2 it has to be understood that it is used in generic sense and it is only an amount given on the marriage as a gift or given as a token of love and affection and trustee for the wife. It has also to be stated that offering dowry and accepting dowry are both not contemplated under law and, therefore, nobody is expected to have any unjust enrichment. So it can be considered as an amount given to the husband at the time of the marriage as a trustee for the wife. When the matrimonial relationship breaks down it has to be reimbursed as well. Now the question is whether any amount was paid or not. The document Ext.A1, which is a letter written by the husband to the wife clearly mentions about the receipt of Rs.20,000/- at the time of marriage as well as the pledging of the gold ornaments belonging to the wife for a sum of Rs.7,000/-. Ext.A1 is produced and marked and in the cross examination no serious challenge is made. As DW1 also the defendant has not attempted to deny Ext.A1 letter. From the letters produced as Ext.B1 to Ext.B3 it can be seen that the wife has been complaining about the husband for not writing letters regularly. So the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ext.A1 would establish the husband had appropriated Rs.20,000/- and 10 sovereigns of gold. Then as per our practice in the society when a A.S NO. 1058 OF 1998 3 daughter is given in marriage it is nothing but natural that the parents give some ornaments to the daughter according to their financial stability and capacity. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff supported by her evidence and coupled with Ext.A1 would show that Rs.20,000/- have been received by defendant and he had pledged the ornaments belonging to the wife. Therefore, he is bound to reimburse the same. So far as the maintenance is concerned, the trial court has found that the wife is living separately without reasonable cause and, therefore, she was declined order of maintenance. So judgment and decree of the trial court regarding the return of money as well as return of the gold ornaments do not suffer from any serious infirmity. Therefore, judgment and decree of the trial court are confirmed and appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. mns