IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 AS.No. 169 of 1999 --------------------------- (OS.NO.133/1992 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA) .................... APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------ 1. K.T. THOMAS UTHUPPAN, KUTTIYIL HOUSE, MURINJAKAL P.O., KOODAL VILLAGE, KALANJOOR, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. K.U. PRADEEP, S/O. THOMAS UTHUPPAN, KUTTIYIL HOUSE, MURINJAKKAL.P.O., KOODAL, KALANJOOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKITESH. RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------- RAIZY VARGHESE, D/O. K.C. VARGHESE, LILLY HOUSE, PATHINICKAL.P.O., PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN. THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = A.S. NO. 169 OF 1999 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Pathanamthita in O.S.133/92. The suit is one for realisation of the amount due to the plaintiff from the defendants. The plaintiff was married by the 2nd defendant and at the time of fixation of the marriage it is contended that Rs.50,000/- was granted as the paternal share and subsequently at the time of the marriage 7 sovereigns of gold were given out of which 4 sovereigns has been misappropriated by the husband. It is also contended that a divorce proceedings is pending as O.P.24/91. 2. On the other hand the defendants would contend that no amount has been entrusted to the A.S. 169 OF 1999 -2- first defendant and no amount was received and that the 2nd defendant has not misappropriated any gold ornaments and further that the petition filed by the wife for divorce has been dismissed. 3. In this case PWs.1 to 3 and DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ext.B1 was marked. The Independent evidence available in the matter is that of PW2 and PW3. One of these witnesses is a Parishioner who has participated in the engagement and it is strongly contended that since the engagement register maintained by the Church does not contain these particulars it has to be stated that no such amount has been given. But the witness had deposed that after the introduction of Dowry Prohibition Act, at the time of engagement no such endorsements were made and therefore absence of an entry in Ext.B1 A.S. 169 OF 1999 -3- does not militate against the plaintiff. Father of the plaintiff also was examined and he had clearly deposed that the engagement was done at their residence and it was from the engagement room the amount was given and received by the father of the 2nd defendant namely first defendant. The Court below on an analysis of the materials found that it appears to be the correct version and the evidence of the defendants are not acceptable. It has to be remembered that it is only a customary practice among the Christians in Kerala to give such amount at the time of engagement or at the time of marriage and there cannot be an entry regarding all these things. It is also the evidence of one of the witnesses that he had participated in the engagement ceremony and had advanced Rs.25,000/- to the father of the A.S. 169 OF 1999 -4- plaintiff for the purpose of making Rs.50,000/- and therefore his evidence also goes in support of the contention of the plaintiff. So I find that the Court below has analyzed the evidence in the correct perspective and had arrived at a decision and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff. I do not find any ground to interfere with the said decision and therefore the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed but without costs. Sd/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- [true copy] P.A. To Judge. A.S. 169 OF 1999 -5- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = A.S. No.169 OF 1999 = = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T 3rd June, 2010.