IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 AS.No. 220 of 1996() -------------------- OS.356/1992 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT: ------------------------- VASUDEVAN NAIR, VAKKEMURIYIL, THIRUVANCHOOR, AYARKUNNAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNAKURUP SRI.K.SURESH KURUP RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- V.K.JAYALAKSHMI, VELLAPPAMAT HOUSE, KILIROOR NORTH , KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.T.P.VARGHESE,PHILIP T.VARGHESE THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = A.S.No.220 of 1996 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5 th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The defendant in O.S.No.356 of 1992 on the file of the Prl.Sub Judge, Kottayam, is the appellant. The said suit instituted by his wife, the respondent herein, was one for realisation of a sum of Rs.25,000/- paid to the defendant at the time of marriage and Rs.29,000/- being the value of gold ornaments allegedly appropriated by him. 2. The case of the plaintiff can be summarised as follows:- The marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant was solemnised on 23.1.1985. Before the marriage, the defendant had demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the plaintiff's share from her family. The plaintiff's brother issued a cheque in favour of the defendant for Rs.20,000/- which was encashed by him on 2.5.1985. One week before the marriage the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- was also paid. At the time of marriage the plaintiff was given gold ornaments worth Rs.10½ sovereigns. When the plaintiff left for her parental home for A.S.No.220 of 1996 2 delivery, she was allowed to take only half of the gold ornaments. She gave birth to a son. The defendant or his relatives did not even visit the plaintiff or her son. Subsequently, on the intervention of the N.S.S.Karayogam, the plaintiff resumed her co-habitation with the defendant. While in the matrimonial home she was ill-treated and her ornaments were taken away by the defendant. In March, 1988, the plaintiff was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and start residing in her parental house. She is entitled to recover the aforementioned amounts with interest at 12% per annum. 3. The appellant/defendant resisted the suit contending, inter alia, as follows:- This defendant had not demanded any money prior to the marriage. He only wanted some time for the solemnisation of the marriage. But the plaintiff's relatives did not want to post- pone the marriage. So they paid Rs.20,000/- to this defendant and the same was utilised of purchasing thali chain and others. The said amount was not paid towards the plaintiff's share. There was no payment of Rs.5000/- as alleged. The allegation that the plaintiff was given gold ornaments worth 10 ½ A.S.No.220 of 1996 3 sovereigns is not true. This defendant did not ill-treat the plaintiff. She was a dis-obedient wife. In August, 1988, she had left the matrimonial home without the consent or knowledge of this defendant. She had taken way all her ornaments while she went to her parental home for delivery. It is not true that she was allowed to take only half of her ornaments . The allegation of misappropriation by this defendant of the plaintiff's ornaments is also denied. This defendant is not liable for any of the amounts shown in the plaint. The provocation for the suit was the notice issued by this defendant calling upon her to return to the matrimonial home. The suit may be dismissed with costs. 4. The learned Sub Judge framed three issues for trial. On the side of the plaintiff, three witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 3 of whom PW1 is the plaintiff herself, PW2 is her brother and PW3 is her uncle. On the side of the appellant, two witnesses were examined as DWs.1 and 2. DW1 is the defendant himself and DW2 is his mother. Exts.B1 and B2 notices were got marked. The learned Sub Judge after trial as per judgment and decree dated 31.7.95 decreed the suit with costs as prayed for. Hence this appeal by the defendant. A.S.No.220 of 1996 4 5. I heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 6. The court below, in preference to the interested testimony of the defendant examined as DW1 and his mother examined as DW2, has chosen to believe the oral testimony of PWs.1 to 3. With regard to the alleged payment of Rs.20,000/-, the appellant himself had admitted the same, although he would say that it was not in pursuance of any demand made by him prior to the marriage and the said payment was not towards the plaintiff's share. With regard to the plaintiff's case that the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- was also paid by her brother (PW2), the court below has believed the testimony of PWs.1 to 3 in that behalf. With regard to the ornaments also, the defence put forward by the appellant was not accepted by the court below which fully believed the plaintiff examined as PW1. In a case as the present where a finding has been recorded by the trial Judge who had the unique advantage of seeing the witnesses and assessing their credibility, this court sitting in appeal will be loath to interfere with the conclusions reached by the court below (vide Madhusudhan Das v. Narayani Bai (AIR 1982 SC 114). On the evidence before the court, I do not think A.S.No.220 of 1996 5 that the court below has committed any error in appreciating the oral evidence and coming to the conclusion which it did. The result of the foregoing discussion is that this appeal is without merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs. Dated this the 5 th day of June, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj