IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 MFA.No. 446 of 1999() --------------------- OP.29/1998 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ----------- P.P.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.GOVINDA KURUP, PUNNAVALAPPIL HOUSE, THURUTHIAD, BALUSSERY. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------- V.V.RESHMA, D/O.KELU KURUP, VARAKOOLTHAMASAM, OLAVILAM, P.O.CHOKLI, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.2439/2001 IN M.F.A.NO.446/1999 DISMISSED. 18-6-2008 SD/- KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- M.F.A. NO.446 OF 1999 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 18th June, 2008. J U D G M E N T Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. The respondent in O.P.29/98 on the file of the Family Court, Kozhikode is the appellant. The said original petition was allowed by the court below, finding that the petitioner is entitled to get a decree for Rs.70,400/-, by order dated 5.3.1999. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent/husband has filed this appeal. 2. The parties are referred to as the petitioner and the respondent, as in the original petition. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 9.3.1996. It is also not disputed that the parties resided together at the house of the respondent approximately for a period of one month. According to the petitioner, she was in possession of 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. It is also her case that the ornaments were taken by the respondent for the purpose of constructing the house. In support of her claim, she has produced Exts.A1 and A2 bill and estimate and Ext.A3 pass book. Exts.A1 and A2 will cover gold ornaments worth Rs.60,632.23. MFA NO.446/99 2 The petitioner also examined PW2, her father and PW3, an independent witness. Both PWs.2 and 3 also testified that the gold ornaments were purchased from the shop during the relevant time. 3. The defence set up by the respondent is that of partial discharge. The court below found that the respondent, by his failure to examine Kannan Master, could not prove his case of partial discharge. The trial court also appreciated the oral evidence of RWs.1, 2 and 3 and entered the finding that the plea of partial discharge by the respondent is highly improbable. The court below also noted the fact that the respondent failed to adduce evidence to prove the plea of partial discharge. The trial court considered the question as to whether the respondent has misappropriated the gold ornaments belonging to the petitioner. After discussing the entire oral and documentary evidence, the court below came to the conclusion that the petitioner was in possession of 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage and the said ornaments were entrusted to the respondent/husband and that there are no materials to disbelieve the case of the petitioner that the respondent has taken her gold MFA NO.446/99 3 ornaments. The discussion of the oral and documentary evidence as above will indicate that the trial court has considered the question in the right perspective and decided the matter on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence. We find no reason or ground to take a different view. Thus, there is no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed. No order as to costs. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ ---------------------------------------------- M.F.A. NO.446 OF 1999 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 18th June, 2008.