IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 Mat.Appeal.No. 209 of 2005() ---------------------------- OP.242/2003 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------- T.V.SHYAMALA, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O.CHATHU, RESIDING AT RAM NIVAS, KUDAMOLI PARAMBIL, NADUVATTOM AMSOM DESOM, ARAKKINAR POST, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- N.SAJITH KUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SREENIVASAN, RESIDING AT PANDIYADATH THAZHAM HOUSE, KOTTOOLI AMSOM DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU SMT.P.K.RADHIKA[CONCILIATOR] SMT.K.V.RESHMI[CONCILIATOR] THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A. No.209 of 2005 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT Raman, J. This is an appeal against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in O.P.No.242/2003. The petitioner is the appellant herein. The petition was for return of part of the gold ornaments and other utensils said to have been misappropriated by the husband. The specific case put forth by the appellant was that 35 sovereigns of gold were purchased for the marriage, out of which 18 sovereigns were retained by her and the balance gold ornaments were misappropriated. Likewise, an amount of Rs.12,035/- stated to be the value of the various articles in B schedule of the petition was also misappropriated. Hence, she sought for a decree for an amount of Rs.75,600/- which is the estimated value of 18 sovereigns of gold ornaments and the above sum of Rs.12,035/-. As regards the gold ornaments, admittedly 18 sovereigns is retained by her. Therefore, it is up to the appellant to establish that the total gold ornaments purchased for the marriage was something more than 18 sovereigns and further, that anything over 18 sovereigns were misappropriated by the husband. Even though the MA 209/2005 -2- appellant would depose that 5 ½ sovereigns, i.e. six bangles were forcibly taken by the husband, the details regarding the same is, however, not stated to instill confidence in the mind of the court to accept the version. Admittedly, she was residing in the matrimonial home and what was the occasion for the husband to take away the bangles, whether she made any complaint to her father-in-law or whether she had made complaint to her father subsequently, are all matters on which sufficient evidence is not adduced. In such circumstances, the court below did not accept the case of the appellant in this regard and we do not find any reason to disagree with the said finding. 2. As regards the utensils, the appellant produced Exts.B1 and B2 receipts. But the court below did not accept these documents for the reason that the name of the buyer is not written in the receipts. Further, neither the shopkeeper nor any other independent witness is examined to show that these articles or utensils were purchased by the appellant or her father. Of course, we find that the production of the receipts by the appellant may indicate that these are purchased by her or by her father. But it is up to the appellant to substantiate that these articles purchased for the marriage, were taken to the matrimonial home. As regards the refrigerator, the definite case of the respondent was that he has asked not to bring the same because he is MA 209/2005 -3- not in a position to pay the electricity bill for the same. Admittedly the refrigerator was purchased only after the marriage. If so, there could have been some evidence as to whether the refrigerator was directly taken to the matrimonial house from the shopkeeper or from her house and if so, whether it was taken in any vehicle and what is the type of vehicle, where was it kept, etc. to show that actually the refrigerator was carried to the respondent's house. Therefore, this is also an aspect on which no acceptable evidence was adduced and the court below has rightly refused to act upon the ipse dixit of the appellant and to grant any relief. 3. We have gone through the evidence and find that the finding of the court below cannot be said to be perverse and in the absence of any appreciable evidence in this regard, we cannot substitute a different finding to that of the trial court. We find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav//8