IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 MFA.No. 386 of 2003() --------------------- OP.245/2000 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER --------------------- KAVUNGAL KUPPEKKATTU SEENATH, 20 YEARS, D/O. BEERAN MOIDEEN, KUPPEKKATTU HOUSE CHELOOPADAM, P.O.CHELEMBRA. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT ----------------------- MUNDAKKATTU SULFIKKER ALI, 25 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, MALAYIL HOUSE, NEEROLPALAM, P.O.THENHIPALAM. BY ADV. SMT.SANGEETHA LAKSHMANA THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO.386 OF 2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. The petitioner in O.P. No.245 of 2000 on the file of the Family Court, Manjeri is the appellant. The respondent herein is her husband. The Original Petition was filed for recovery of money and gold ornaments. The respondent filed a counter statement denying the averments in the petition. The Family Court dismissed the Original Petition stating that the petitioner has not established her case. Hence, this appeal. 2. The parties herein are referred to as the petitioner and respondent as in the Original Petition. The evidence in the case consists of the oral evidence of the petitioner and her relative who were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and that of the respondent who was examined as RW.1. The petitioner as PW.1 testified in terms of the petition. PW.2 was examined to prove the entrustment of gold ornaments and money to the respondent. The Family Court in paragraph 8 of the order held that it will not be possible to grant a decree in favour of the petitioner for Rs.2,25,000/- on M.F.A.NO.386/2003 2 the basis of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 alone and that it is not easy to believe that almost all the ornaments and money were appropriated by the respondent immediately after the marriage. The Family Court also did not place reliance on the evidence of PW.2 stating that he is an interested witness being related to the petitioner as well as the respondent. The court below also observed that apart from the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2, there is no other evidence to prove that so much of gold ornaments and money were given to the petitioner at the time of marriage and those were appropriated by the respondent. 3. On going through the impugned order, we find that the reasons stated for entering the finding that the petitioner has not established her case cannot stand. The oral evidence tendered by PWs.1 and 2, if believed, may lead to passing of a decree in favour of the petitioner. The reason stated for not accepting the evidence of PW.2 also is not proper. In matrimonial matters, the evidence tendered by the relatives is more relevant than that of strangers. The Family Court went wrong in very lightly dismissing the petition for the reasons stated therein. We feel that this is a fit case for de novo consideration. In the result, the order under appeal is set aside and the case is M.F.A.NO.386/2003 3 remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The parties are at liberty to adduce additional evidence, if any. The Family Court shall decide the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There will be no order as to costs. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ M.F.A.NO.386/2003 4 KURIAN JOSEPH & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ. M.F.A. NO. 386/2003 JUDGMENT 20th August, 2008