IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 Mat.Appeal.No. 161 of 2005() ---------------------------- OP.584/2004 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------------- ACHAMMA SAM @ KOCHUMOL, CHIRAMANNIL HOUSE, EETTICHUVADU P.O.,ANGADI MURI, MANARATHARA, ANGADI VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. SAM CHACKO, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. C.M. CHACKO, CHIRAMANNIL HOUSE, ANGADI MURI, MANARATHARA, ANGADI VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK. 2. C.M. CHACKO, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. LATE MATHAI, CHIRAMANNIL HOUSE, EETTICHUVADU P.O., ANGADI MURI, MANARATHARA, ANGADI VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK. 3. KUNJAMMA CHACKO, AGED 68 YEARS, W/O. C.M. CHACKO, CHIRAMANNIL HOUSE, EETTICHUVADU P.O., ANGADI MURI, MANARATHARA, ANGADI VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANTOSH KUMAR (PERUNAD) FOR R2 SRI.R.RENJITH FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------- MAT. APPEAL NO.161 OF 2005 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. The petitioner in O.P. No.584 of 2004 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla is the appellant. The Family Court summarily dismissed the said Original Petition filed for recovery of gold ornaments and money holding that there is no matrimonial dispute and hence this appeal. The parties herein are referred to as petitioner and respondents as in the Original Petition. 2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 5.1.1995. It is the case of the petitioner/wife that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to her at the time of marriage. It is also alleged inter alia that her life with the first respondent/husband was not a happy one and that the respondents ill treated her mentally and physically demanding more dowry. She also contended that the amount given to her which was entrusted with the respondents was misappropriated by them. According to the petitioner, the reason stated for the dismissal of the Original Petition is not correct and that the conclusion arrived at is without any basis. Mat. Appeal No.161/2005 2 3. We have gone through the impugned judgment and we find that the Family Court, without going into the merits of the claim, summarily dismissed the Original Petition stating that the petitioner and her husband are residing together. That is not a reason for dismissing the Original Petition in view of the pleadings regarding the entrustment of money and gold ornaments and the relief claimed in the petition. The matter should be decided on merits after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties. In the result, the Matrimonial Appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. The case is remanded to the Family Court, Thiruvalla for de novo consideration. The parties are at liberty to adduce evidence, if any, in support of their respective contentions. 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/ Mat. Appeal No.161/2005 3 KURIAN JOSEPH & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ. MAT.APPEALNO.161/2005 JUDGMENT 28th July, 2008 Mat. Appeal No.161/2005 4