IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2010 / 2ND MAGHA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 60 of 2006 E ------------------------------------------------- OP.1018/2003 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------- 1. SUNNY GEORGE, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, MANTHRAYIL VEETTIL, PARUMALA MURIYIL, KADAPRA VILLAGE. 2. THANKAMMA GEORGE, AGD 60 YEARS, M/O.SUNNY GEORGE, MANTHRAYIL VEETTIL, PARUMALA MURIYIL, KADAPRA VILLAGE. 3. SONY GEORGE, AGED 33 YEARS, B/O.SUNNY GEORGE, MANTHRAYIL VEETTIL, PARUMALA MURIYIL, KADAPRA VILLAGE. 4. CICILY GEORGE, AGED 36 YEARS, SISTER OF SUNNY GEORGE, MANTHRAYIL VEETTIL, PARUMALA MURIYIL, KADAPRA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS ----------------------------------------------- 1. CICILY SUNNY, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O.SUNNY GEORGE, KATTIL KIZHAKKATHIL VEETTIL, PARUMALA MURIYIL, KADAPRA VILLAGE. 2. KECIYA, AGED 6 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER CICILY SUNNY, KATTIL KIZHAKKATHIL VEETTIL, PARUMALA MURIYIL, KADAPRA VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY FOR R1 & 2 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- MAT.APPEAL NO.60 OF 2006 E --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd January, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Appellants are the respondents in O.P.No.1018 of 2003 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla. That Petition was filed by the respondents herein for recovery of the share amount and gold ornaments or its value. The Family Court has passed the following Order: “In the result, OP is allowed allowing the petitioner to recover Rs.50,000/= with interest at 6% from the respondents and their assets. Petitioner is also allowed to recover 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value of Rs.20,000/= from the 1st respondent and his assets. Petitioner is also allowed to recover past maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.1,500/= for 3 years prior to the petition and future maintenance allowance at the same rate with 6% interest from the 1st respondent and his assets, along with a cost of Rs.1,500/=.” MAT.APPEAL NO.60/06 E 2 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The respondents have produced Exts.A1 to A7. There were three witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents. The appellants produced Exts.B1 and B2. They also examined four witnesses as RW1 to RW3. The Family Court has arrived at its conclusions on the basis of the testimony of seven witnesses and nine documents. 3. We do not see that there is any merit in the contentions of appellants 1 and 2. But, the learned counsel for the appellants is justified in his complaint that the Family Court ought not to have passed a decree as against appellants 3 and 4. There is no pleading in the Petition as against appellants 3 and 4. Though there was prayer as against all the respondents, we feel that the Family Court erred in granting relief as against appellants 3 and 4 without even there being pleadings as against them. In such circumstances, while we confirm the Judgment as MAT.APPEAL NO.60/06 E 3 against appellants 1 and 2, we set aside the Judgment as against appellants 3 and 4. The Appeal is allowed in part as above. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge