IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 517 of 2007() ---------------------------- OP.139/2007 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------- RAFEEQ,S/O. HAMZA,NALAKATH HOUSE, PATTAPARAMB, CHEMMANKADAVU, MALAPPURAM (DT) BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MOHAMMED @ KUTTIPPA, S/O. PUZHAKKATHODI HUSSANKUTTY, MUNDUPARAMBA, KEEZHUMURI DESOM, MALAPPURAM AMSOM, MALAPPURAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR SRI.P.VINODKUMAR RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ------------------------- ASHIDA K, D/O. AZEEZ, KAVUNGAL HOUSE, MAKADA ROAD, MAKKARAPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM (DT) BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL SRI.V.S.BOBAN SRI.P.S.PRADEEP SRI.SHOJAN JACOB THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.No.2168/07 IN MAT.A.NO.517/07 //DISMISSED// 11.8.09 SD/- R.BASANT, JUDGE SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2009 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 517 of 2007 ---------------------------- OP.139/2007 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- RAFEEQ,S/O. HAMZA,NALAKATH HOUSE, PATTAPARAMB, CHEMMANKADAVU, MALAPPURAM (DT) BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MOHAMMED @ KUTTIPPA, S/O. PUZHAKKATHODI HUSSANKUTTY, MUNDUPARAMBA, KEEZHUMURI DESOM, MALAPPURAM AMSOM, MALAPPURAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR SRI.P.VINODKUMAR RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ------------------------- ASHIDA K, D/O. AZEEZ, KAVUNGAL HOUSE, MAKADA ROAD, MAKKARAPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM (DT) ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL FOR R1 SRI.V.S.BOBAN FOR R1 SRI.P.S.PRADEEP FOR R1 SRI.SHOJAN JACOB FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- Mat.Appeal No.517 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. In the tricky situation that presented itself before the trial court, did the court commit any error in accepting the oral evidence of interested PW1 and granting a decree on the basis of such evidence? Did the court below commit any error in the appreciation of oral evidence as mandated by Section 3 of the Evidence Act? Does the discretion exercised by the trial court warrant appellate interference and correction? These questions arise for consideration in this appeal. 2. In this appeal, the appellant/husband assails the order passed by the Family Court in O.P.No.139/2007 obliging him to pay a total amount of Rs.6,57,480/- along with interest at the rate of 6%per annum from the date of filing of the petition with costs. 3. Marriage is admitted. Though there was a contention that the marital tie has been dissolved by pronouncement of WPC. 2 Talak, the Family Court has in the light of the decision in Shamim Ara v. State of U.P.[2002(3) KLT 537(SC)] already held in M.C.No.120/07, and this Court by order dated 3.2.2009 in R.P.(F.C.)No.395/2007 has upheld the said finding, that notwithstanding Exhibits B1 to B3, the marital tie has not been dissolved. 4. The wife who filed O.P.No.139/2007 alleged that an amount of Rs.1 lakh and gold ornaments weighing 77 sovereigns which were available with the appellant were taken away and enjoyed by the appellant without returning the same to the wife. An amount of Rs.1 lakh and gold ornaments weighing 70 sovereigns were allegedly given to the husband at the time of marriage. Gold ornaments weighing seven sovereigns were allegedly given by the husband to the wife at the time of marriage. It is thus, she alleged, that she had 77 sovereigns of gold ornaments with her when she was allegedly thrown out of the house of the appellant consequent to the disputes between them. 5. The appellant/husband resisted the claim. He contended that the wife did not bring any ornaments or gold with WPC. 3 her at the time of marriage. According to him, the wife belonged to a very poor family. The husband and his people therefore agreed to give 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the wife before the marriage. She wore those ornaments when she came as a bride. She admittedly had five sovereigns more of ornaments at the time of marriage. According to the appellant/husband, he is not retaining an amount of Rs.1 lakh or 77 sovereigns of gold ornaments as alleged by the wife. 6. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The claimant/wife examined herself as PW1. The husband did not examine himself as a witness. Instead, a power of attorney holder was examined as RW1. Exhibits B1 to B3 were marked. Those documents have no direct relevance or bearing whatsoever on the instant dispute regarding the liability to return an amount of Rs.1 lakh and 77 sovereigns of gold ornaments. They make it clear that marital tie was attempted to be terminated – not harmoniously but by a unilateral pronouncement of Talak when she was residing separately at her house. 7. The learned Judge of the Family Court was thus left with the oral evidence of PW1 against the oral evidence of RW1. WPC. 4 The court was called upon to take a decision on the disputed questions of fact on the basis of such evidence of PW1 and RW1. 8. The learned Judge chose to place reliance on the oral evidence of PW1 and did not accept the oral evidence of RW1. RW1 was only a power of attorney holder of the appellant. He, admittedly, did not know the financial transactions between the appellant and the respondent. The court below found it difficult to place any reliance on the oral evidence of RW1. In short, the court below came to the conclusion that there is no reason to disbelieve the oral evidence of PW1 in the total absence of any attempt to effectively controvert the evidence of PW1. It is accordingly that the impugned order was passed by the Family Court. 9. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant/husband and respondent/wife have advanced their arguments. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the court below erred grossly and perversely in placing reliance on the uncorroborated oral evidence of PW1 to come to the conclusion that the appellant is bound to return an amount of Rs.1 lakh and 77 sovereigns of gold ornaments, the value of WPC. 5 which was fixed at Rs.5,57,480/-. The learned counsel relying on precedents contends that the oral evidence of PW1 should not have been accepted at all. Her uncorroborated oral evidence is insufficient to discharge the burden on her to establish a prima facie case whereupon only the husband's burden to rebut even under Section 101 of the Evidence Act would arise. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary contends that there was no reason for the Family Court to disbelieve the oral evidence of PW1. It rhymes well with reason, logic and common sense. The evidence of PW1 has not been effectively rebutted at all. There is no valid explanation as to why the husband or his close relatives who had direct knowledge about the transactions between the spouses were not examined to rebut the evidence of PW1. In any view of the matter, the learned counsel prays that the exercise of discretion by the trial court which had the evident advantage of seeing the witnesses perform in the witness stand before it may not be interfered with and thrown overboard without any valid and justifiable reasons. 11. Obviously, the court below was in an unenviable WPC. 6 position. The version of the claimant/wife that she had brought with her at the time of marriage cash and gold ornaments is absolutely reasonable, probable and rhymes well with the broad probabilities, common course of events and the probable and natural conduct of human beings. Even the respondent took up a case not that the wife did not have ornaments at the time of her marriage but that the ornaments which she wore were given by the husband and his family to the wife prior to her marriage so that she could wear them and come for the wedding. Even going by the plain admissions of RW1 in evidence, the appellant cannot raise a contention that the wife was not having 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments on her person when she came for the wedding. It is significant that no specific evidence is adduced or suggestions made to PW1 to show that she had left the matrimonial home taking all her ornaments with her. The father of the respondent/wife was undisputedly employed abroad at the time of the marriage. If probabilities were to be evaluated and assessed adopting the standards of a prudent person as mandated by Section 3 of the Evidence At, we have no hesitation to agree that the oral evidence of PW1 deserves and commands WPC. 7 greater respect and acceptability. The course allegedly adopted by a bride-groom and his parents, of handing over ornaments to the wife before marriage is definitely not a natural or probable conduct ordinarily. No satisfactory evidence in support of such an abnormal conduct has been adduced. The oral evidence of RW1 did not at all inspire confidence of the court below. As an appellate court considering the oral evidence of PW1 and RW1, we have no hesitation to endorse the discretion exercised by the trial court in choosing to place reliance on the oral evidence of PW1 and not RW1. The same cannot by any stretch of imagination be held to be so erroneous or faulty as to warrant appellate interference. The nature of the rebuttal evidence attempted also goes a long way to assure the court of the acceptability of the oral evidence of PW1. 12. Grievance is raised that the respondent on whom at least a prima facie burden lay did not choose to examine any other witnesses. She did not choose to produce any other documents. No photographs were produced, it is contended. We do not find much force in these contentions. Even admittedly, the wife was wearing quite a lot of ornaments at the time of WPC. 8 wedding. This shows that the photographs could not have been of any crucial assistance to resolve a dispute like the instant one. Moreover, it would be idle to draw any adverse inference against the wife for not producing any photographs as wedding photographs cannot be assumed to be ones in the exclusive possession of the wife. To contradict the oral evidence of PW1, the husband would and could certainly have made use of such photographs, if any. He did not obviously do so. 13. The plight of a wife called upon to prove her case in similar circumstances cannot be ignored, forgotten or overlooked by any prudent court. It would be idle to expect documentary evidence to be available to prove the ornaments and cash handed over by the wife to the husband at the time of marriage. In any view of the matter, the conclusion appears to be inevitable that the discretion exercised by the trial court which had the evident advantage of seeing the witness perform in the witness stand before it does not warrant appellate interference. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the respondent had on oath asserted that a much larger quantity of gold ornaments and currency were handed over, the court may WPC. 9 have believed such evidence also. It is contended that the court below did not evaluate the evidence properly to come to the conclusion that at least the prima facie burden on PW1 had been discharged, contends the learned counsel. Reliance was placed precedents on the nature of burden on a plaintiff to prove his case before he seeks a decree. 15. Appreciation of evidence is both a science and an art. The court has no magic wand to discover the truth. All available inputs will have to be placed in the crucible of the mind, intellect and the trained intentions of a judge of facts. The judge adopting subjective standards of himself as a prudent person and the objective standards of other prudent persons must come out with the answer whether a fact is proved or not. No rigid rules can apply. The only rule in appreciation of evidence, it has often been stated euphemistically, is that there is no rule at all. There cannot be any rule of the thumb in appreciation of evidence. No precedents can help a judge of facts to decide whether a fact is proved or not in the circumstances of a given case. They may help the court to ascertain whether a piece of evidence is admissible or not. They may help the court to ascertain how WPC. 10 experienced judicial minds have reacted to similar situations or comparable situations earlier. But facts in no two cases can be exactly identical and hence when it comes to resolution of factual controversies, it shall be improper and impermissible to rely on precedents blindly or mechanically. That would only be abdication of the sublime and onerous responsibility placed on the shoulders of an Indian Judge by law. There is no jury under Indian law now. In other systems, where trial by jury takes place, they rely on the prudence of prudent men to resolve the disputed facts. Democratisation and societal involvement in the adjudicatory process is thereby achieved. But in the Indian system of law, that burden to adjudicate and resolve disputed questions of facts is also left with the Judge. The Judge has to adopt the standards of prudent persons and resolve such questions. 16. A prudent person can safely assume, in the absence of better reasons that there is sanctity for oath for all. That PW1 is speaking the truth on oath is the safe premise from which the journey can start. Cross-examination of PW1 has not made any dent in her testimony. She did not of course adduce any better WPC. 11 evidence. No prudent person could expect her to have any documentary evidence in her exclusive possession to throw light on the controversy. She could have duplicated the oral evidence but evidently there would not be any absolutely disinterested oral evidence to throw light on this controversy. Her plight must be taken note of by any prudent mind. It may be easier and convenient for a court to throw its hands up and say that better evidence must have been produced to discharge the initial burden on a party claiming a relief from a court. But the court's duty to do justice in the given circumstances must be borne in mind. The stand of the appellant adduced through his pleadings and the evidence of RW1 is crucial. He admits that PW1 had ornaments with her at the time of marriage. But, the very improbable contention is that they were handed over to her by him prior to the marriage. There is no acceptable evidence in favour of this theory. There is no specific pleading or evidence to show that she had carried back the ornaments to her parental home when she left the matrimonial home. What is most crucial while undertaking appreciation of the oral evidence of PW1 is that there is no acceptable rebuttal evidence. The appellant or his relatives WPC. 12 who could have tendered at least interested evidence on the controversy avoided the witness stand and evaded the obligation to face a cross-examination. RW1 who has no direct knowledge on the financial transactions was alone examined. Most of his evidence was only hearsay evidence. There is not even a request for a further opportunity to examine the appellant. It is not explained why the appellant did not examine himself. About the question of cash and ornaments, there is only the evidence of PW1. Throwing overboard her evidence would definitely result in gross injustice. Accepting her evidence involves the risk of the possibility of exaggeration. The appellant's failure to adduce any acceptable evidence on the controversy becomes important in this context. It was in these circumstances that the court below chose to accept the evidence of PW1. 17. We have considered all the relevant aspects. A court has to adopt the standards of a prudent person while assessing and evaluating evidence. As per the mandate of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, a prudent man's standards have to be adopted. It will not be inapposite in this context to refer to the great advantage which the trial court has in the manner of appreciation WPC. 13 of evidence. The discretion exercised by a court which had the evident advantage of seeing the witnesses perform in the witness box cannot be lost sight of by an appellate court. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that the appellate discretion does not deserve to be invoked to overturn the discretion exercised by the trial court. 18. If PW1's evidence is believed in preference to that of RW1, the impugned order is perfectly justifiable. The challenge raised in this appeal must in these circumstances fail. 19. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. We direct the parties to suffer their respective costs. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn WPC. 14 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- M.J.C.No.273 OF 2009 IN Mat.Appeal No.517 of 2007 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 O R D E R Basant, J. In the circumstances explained in the affidavit, we are satisfied that a lenient view can be taken and the judgment dated 18.6.2009 dismissing the appeal for default can be recalled. Respondent raises no objection also. Petition allowed. Order dated 18.6.2009 is recalled. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn WPC. 15 R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== MAT. APPEAL NO. 517 OF 2007 ============================ DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The matter was heard in part on the last date of posting and discussions were made in the course of the hearing. The learned counsel for the appellant wanted further time and accordingly, the matter was posted to this date. Today when the matter came up, there is no representation for the appellant. It is evident that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. This appeal, in these circumstances, dismissed for default with costs. Sd/- R. BASANT, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY WPC. 16 P.S. TO JUDGE