NOUSHAD KULANGARA VEETTIL, CHETTUVA, KUNDALIYUR, KUNDALIYUR P.O. AND OTHERS Vs. HASNA KANDANASSERY VILLAGE, CHOWALLOOR DESOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the order dated 16.4.2013 in O.P.No.1180 of 2011 of the Family Court, Thrissur directing return of gold ornaments by the appellants to the respondent. The appellants, who are the husband and his parents, were the respondents in the original petition.

(2.) The contention in the original petition was that the marriage between the 1st appellant and the respondent, who are Muslims, was solemnized on 19.11.2009. The respondent claimed that she had 100 sovereigns of gold ornaments for her marriage. After one week of the marriage, the appellants had approached the respondent to keep the gold ornaments in locker. She entrusted 70 sovereigns of gold ornaments with the appellants as trustees. The appellants had misused the said gold ornaments without keeping the same in bank locker. The appellants had harassed the respondent after the marriage demanding more dowry. The 1st appellant had doubted the chastity of the respondent. He had harassed the respondent both mentally and physically. He was interested in unnatural sexual activities. The respondent became unconscious due to the forcible intercourse. The same was intimated to the family members of the respondent. Hence, they had taken the respondent to her parental home. The appellants have not returned the 70 sovereigns of gold ornaments despite repeated demands for the same.

(3.) The appellants filed joint counter statement denying that the respondent had obtained 100 sovereigns of gold ornaments for her marriage and she had entrusted 70 sovereigns with the appellants. It was admitted that the respondent had obtained ornaments for her marriage. But the appellants were not aware of the nature or weight of the said ornaments. The respondent used to keep the gold ornaments under her pillow in a bag. The 1st appellant had given 19 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the respondent. The respondent is having an abnormal personality. She talked rarely. The financial condition of the respondent was very bad. It is also incorrect to state that the 1st appellant had subjected the respondent to unnatural sex. The respondent had behaved like a mentally deranged person. She had told the 1st appellant that she was not interested in marrying him and she had married him due to the compulsion of her family members. She used to sleep underneath the cot. She had informed the 1st appellant that she was in love with another person by name Binshad. She was subjected to treatment of doctors as well as priests. The hypno therapist had opined that the respondent was not able to lead a normal married life. The father of the respondent had visited the house of the appellants with the marriage broker Haneefa and promised to return the gold ornaments which were given to the respondent by the appellants.