IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 Mat.Appeal.No. 240 of 2007() ---------------------------- OP.249/2003 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. SHILU NARAYANAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, KADAN KAVIL VEEDU, KURINJI, RAMAPURAM. 2. CHINNAMMA NARAYANAN, W/O.NARAYANAN, -DO-. 3. NARAYANAN, -DO-. BY ADVS. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SRI.JOSEPH T.JOHN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER: ------------------------ AJIMOL, W/O.SHILU, VALLIKKATTIL HOUSE, EZHACHERRY P.O., RAMAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2008 ALONG WITH MA NO. 251 OF 2007, THE COURT ON 23/07/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NOS. 1121 OF 2007 & 2270 of 2007 IN MAT. APPEAL NOS.240 OF 2007. DISMISSED 23.7.2008 Sd/-(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) SD/-(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------- MAT. APPEAL NOS. 240 & 251 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. The appellants are the respondents in O.P.Nos.249 of 2003 and 467 of 2003 on the file of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. O.P. No.467 of 2003 was allowed by the court below dissolving the marriage between the parties. O.P.No.249 of 2003 was also allowed and a decree was passed allowing the wife to realise 238 grams of gold ornaments or its approximate value of Rs.1,80,000/- with 6% interest from the date of the judgment. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the appellants have filed the above appeals. The parties are hereafter referred to as petitioner and respondents as in O.P. No. 249 of 2003. 2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 21.5.2000 and a child was born in that wedlock. It is alleged by the petitioner that the first respondent/husband and his mother treated her with cruelty and manhandled her demanding more dowry. She also alleged that she was Mat. Appeal Nos.240 & 251/2007 2 sent out of the house on 8.10.2002 after manhandling her. The petitioner further alleged that at the time of marriage her parents had given her 238 grams of gold ornaments and that the same was entrusted with the first respondent/husband and his parents. It is stated that due to the cruel treatment of her husband and his parents, it is not possible for her to live with her husband and hence she prayed for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and for return of the gold and other articles mentioned in the petition. The first respondent filed objection denying the allegations levelled against him. He contended that the allegation of cruelty is not correct and that neither he nor his parents demanded more dowry from the petitioner. 3. The petitioner was examined as PW.1 and the first respondent and another witness were examined as RWs.1 and 2 respectively. Ext.A1 marriage certificate was marked on the side of the petitioner and Ext.B1 report of the Panchayat Committee was marked on the side of the first respondent. As PW.1, the petitioner gave evidence detailing the cruel treatment meted out to her by her husband and his parents. She had also testified that the respondents had brutally manhandled her and even made attempts to kill her. She contended that her ornaments were taken away by the respondents and that she and the child were sent out of the house. Mat. Appeal Nos.240 & 251/2007 3 According to her, her life with the first respondent is dangerous. The first respondent when examined testified in terms of his counter statement. He stated in cross-examination that he did not know whether the ornaments belonging to the petitioner were gold or not. Ext.A1 is the marriage certificate issued by the Ezhacherry S.N.D.P. Sakha Yogam. It is stated in the register that 238 grams of gold ornaments were given to the petitioner at the time of marriage. Though the first respondent admitted that he had put his signature in the register, he pretended ignorance when confronted with the marriage register which contains the statement that the petitioner was given 238 grams of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. He also admitted that the petitioner had filed complaints against him on two occasions regarding harassment. The court below noticed the fact that M.C. No.82 of 2003 filed by the petitioner/wife for maintenance was allowed and the appeal preferred by her husband against the said order ended in dismissal. RW.2, the Secretary of Meenachil S.N.D.P. Union stated that there was mediation talk at the instance of the S.N.D.P. Union and that the dispute was due to the attitude of the mother of the husband. 4. The court below appreciated the evidence on record and concluded that the petitioner/wife has succeeded in proving that she was treated with cruelty by her husband and in-laws demanding more dowry Mat. Appeal Nos.240 & 251/2007 4 and that the petitioner left on account of the cruelty meted out to her. The court below also noted the fact that no settlement could be arrived at inspite of the mediation talk. The court below held that the evidence adduced by the petitioner/wife is convincing and further observed that there is no bonafides in the evidence tendered by the first respondent/husband. Regarding the claim for return of gold ornaments and other items, the court below found that the petitioner has succeeded in proving that she was given 238 grams of gold at the time of marriage. On an evaluation of the entire evidence, the court below held that there is probability in the petitioner's case and that there is no reason to discredit her testimony. The court below thus concluded that the petitioner/wife is entitled to a decree for recovery of the gold ornaments as well. 5. The Family Court had made efforts for a reunion between the parties. We also made earnest efforts to settle the dispute between the parties. The matter was even referred to the Lok Adalat. After meeting the parties, the Lok Adalat reported that there is no possibility of a settlement in view of the adamant attitude of both sides. We have examined the oral evidence tendered by the parties as well as the documentary evidence and we find that there is no reason to take a different view in the given circumstances. The evidence on record, Mat. Appeal Nos.240 & 251/2007 5 particularly Ext.A1 marriage certificate, was evaluated correctly by the court below. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. In the result, the appeals fail and they are accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ Mat. Appeal Nos.240 & 251/2007 6 KURIAN JOSEPH & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ. MAT. APPEAL NOS. 240 & 251 OF 2007 JUDGMENT 23rd July, 2008 Mat. Appeal Nos.240 & 251/2007 7