IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 MFA.No. 1354 of 1998(D) ----------------------- OP.471/1996 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------- V.M. VANAJA, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O. V.M. KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT THOOMBATTA HOUSE, POST KONATT, VIA KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE 673 571 BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------- K. RARUKUTTY, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. K. CHANDUKUTTY, RESIDING AT "KINAR VEEDU", POST MALAYAMMA, REC, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO. 1354 OF 1998 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. The petitioner in O.P. No.471 of 1996 on the file of the Family Court, Kozhikode is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.1.1998 by which the claim of the petitioner for return of gold ornaments and other items were rejected. The parties are hereafter referred to as petitioner and respondent as in the Original Petition. 2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 12.11.1989. Two children were born in the wedlock. It is alleged by the petitioner/wife that at the time of marriage, she was given 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments worth Rs.35,000/, household articles worth Rs.7,500/- and Rs.10,000/- in cash and that the respondent/husband appropriated the amount, gold ornaments and other articles. It is further pleaded that she was ill treated and that on 22.4.1993 the respondent abandoned her. The respondent filed a counter statement denying the allegations levelled against him. According to him, the petitioner was not given 10 sovereigns M.F.A.NO.1354/1998 2 of gold ornaments, household articles or cash at the time of marriage as alleged. 3. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and RWs.1 and 2. Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the petitioner. The court below after appreciating the oral evidence concluded that the marriage between the parties was not an arranged marriage, but a love marriage and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that she was given gold ornaments, household articles and cash cannot be believed. The court below also stated reasons for not placing reliance on Ext.A1 which did not even contain the signature of the goldsmith who issued the same. The court below relied on the oral evidence of RW.1 who had deposed that the petitioner had only about 3 sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage and she is in possession of the same. The court below concluded that the petitioner failed to prove possession of the articles and amount as stated in the petition and the further assertion that the same were misappropriated by the respondent/husband. Finding that there was no sufficient grounds for granting a decree, the court below dismissed the Original Petition. 4. The findings entered by the court below for non suiting the M.F.A.NO.1354/1998 3 petitioner are proper and valid. We find that no grounds are made out to take a different view in the given circumstances. In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ M.F.A.NO.1354/1998 4 KURIAN JOSEPH & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ. M.F.A. NO. 1354/1998 JUDGMENT 14th July, 2008