ROYSON MATHEW Vs. MINIMOL.K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal arises from the judgment of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, in O.P.No.3/2007 which was filed by the present 1st respondent. The appellant herein was the 1 st respondent in O.P.No.3/2007. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they appear in the judgment of the Family Court, unless otherwise indicated.

(2.) The petitioner filed O.P.No.3/2007 seeking for (i) for return of an amount of Rs.50,000/-, which was allegedly paid as patrimony; (ii) for return of 340 grams of gold ornaments or its equivalent value; (iii) for recovery of Rs.10,32,500/- alleged to have been remitted by her to the account of her husband (appellant); (iv) return of share certificate of Appolo Hospital and (v) for return of L.I.C. Certificate of Rs.1 lakh. There are allegations of the 1st respondent having an illicit relationship; of having treated the petitioner with cruelty etc., in the petition. However, for the purpose of this case, we need not advert to those allegations in any detail.

(3.) The 1st respondent initially did not contest the case and the Original Petition was partly decreed for recovery of Rs.50,000/- and 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments. That judgment dated 8.12.2009 was set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded back for fresh disposal. The 1st respondent, thereafter, appeared and filed an objection together and also raised a counter claim. According to him, there was no demand for any patrimony. However he stated that an amount of Rs.1 lakh was entrusted with him for marriage expenses, out of which he used Rs.60,000/- to purchase 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments and bridal costumes for the petitioner. According to him, the balance Rs.40,000/- was used for the marriage feast and other incidental expenses. He stated that he had given a 'thali chain' and 'thali' weighing a total of 50.300 grams to the petitioner and contended that including the 10 grams of gold ornaments purchased by him, the petitioner was having only 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage . He also alleged that the petitioner was wearing some imitation gold at the time of marriage. He also stated that the entire gold ornaments were in the custody and possession of the petitioner; that the petitioner had not remitted any amount to his account and that the entire amounts remitted actually belonged to him, that he was a responsible and caring husband, that he had no illicit relationship, that he had not ill-treated the petitioner in any manner etc. He sought for recovery of an amount of Rs.11,68,750/- on the plea that (i) during the period from 1999-2003, he had entrusted 10,500/- Saudi Riyals with the petitioner; (ii) that she had withdrawn 60,000/- Saudi Riyals from his account through ATM and (iii) that when she left the matrimonial home, she had taken away 5000 US dollars and 3000 Saudi Riyals kept by him in his almirah. The amount of Rs.11,68,750/- was claimed to be the rupee equivalent of the aforesaid amounts of foreign currency. He also sought for recovery of 434.700 grams gold ornaments, which he had allegedly purchased for the petitioner at the time when their marriage was subsisting.