JUDGMENT : K. Ramakrishnan, J. The sole respondent in OP.No.157/2009 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram is the appellant herein. The original petition was filed by the respondents herein for past maintenance, recovery of gold ornaments and other monetary reliefs. The first respondent herein is the wife of the appellant and their marriage was solemnized on 26.12.2004 and at the time of marriage, the appellant has agreed to provide 3½ sovereigns as maher. At the time of marriage, 35½ sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to the first respondent herein by her father and after the marriage, they started residing together in the house of the appellant. The second respondent was born in that wedlock. According to the first petitioner in the original petition, apart from the appellant herein his mother Ayisha, brother Abdul Razack and married sisters Saleena, Synaba and Jameela were also residing in that house. Though his sisters were married and they were living in the matrimonial home, since their husbands were working abroad and they used to be in this house always. Since the father of the appellant died earlier, the management of the house was done by the mother of the appellant. While the first respondent became pregnant, she was ill treated by the appellant and his family members. She was not given proper treatment. She was even blamed for becoming pregnant earlier than others in the family. She was made to do all the works in the house though she was advised bed rest by the doctor and the same was not provided. She was not allowed to complete her degree course by the family members of the appellant. Out of the 35½ sovereigns of gold ornaments, 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments were taken by the appellant for his purpose and the same has not been returned. The fact that the appellant was a physically handicapped person affected by polio was not disclosed at the time of marriage. Suppressing this fact the marriage was conducted. She was taken to her house at the time of 7th month of her pregnancy and thereafter they did not come and enquire about her. She delivered the child on 6th November, 2005 from Tirur Mission Hospital. The expenses for delivery and subsequent expenses for treatment were not met by the appellant and that was met by her family members. She was taken to her house at the time of 7th month of her pregnancy and thereafter they did not come and enquire about her. She delivered the child on 6th November, 2005 from Tirur Mission Hospital. The expenses for delivery and subsequent expenses for treatment were not met by the appellant and that was met by her family members. She was taken to the matrimonial home after 60 days of delivery as per custom. Though the child was having some illness, the same has not been looked after by the appellant or his family members. They were ill treating her stating that they would have got more dowry etc. She was sent out of the house and thereafter they were not providing any maintenance. She had filed a complaint as CMP.No.7829/2008 alleging offences under Sections 406 and 498 A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and that is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tirur. She had spent nearly Rs.25,000/- for her treatment and Rs.15,000/- for her delivery expenses. She requires Rs.7,000/- for maintenance for herself and Rs.3,000/- for the child. No amount was paid from 3.7.2008 to 18.2.2009. So she is entitled to get Rs.75,000/- towards past maintenance and Rs.2,29,600/- towards value of gold ornaments if the appellant is not returning the gold ornaments and also Rs.40,000/- towards delivery and other treatment expenses. So she prayed for allowing the claim and decreeing the petition. 2. The appellant who is the respondent before the Court below entered appearance and filed written statement admitting the marriage and birth of the child but denied the allegations of cruelty and other allegations. He had denied the allegation that 3½ sovereigns were fixed as 'mahr' at the time of marriage. He had also contended that the first respondent was not given 35½ sovereigns of gold ornaments and she was having only less than 15 to 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments which she had taken when she left the house. He had denied the allegation that family members were cruel to her. In fact, the brother of the appellant was residing separately and his sisters were given in marriage and they are residing in their matrimonial home and they are not residing along with the appellant as alleged. The allegation of cruelty on the ground of demanding more dowry is also not correct and hence denied. In fact, the brother of the appellant was residing separately and his sisters were given in marriage and they are residing in their matrimonial home and they are not residing along with the appellant as alleged. The allegation of cruelty on the ground of demanding more dowry is also not correct and hence denied. Since he being a leader to Mujahideen sect, there was no practice of demanding dowry at the time of marriage as they were against the same. The allegation that delivery expenses were met by the first respondent and her family members and she was not treated and expenses were met by them etc are not correct and hence denied. Her delivery was admitted by him and he has paid the hospital charges in connection with her delivery. The allegation that 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments were taken by him and pledged the same for his purpose is also not correct and hence denied. All the gold ornaments were taken by her when she left the house. She was not having any illness as alleged. She never required any treatment after the delivery as claimed. So the petitioners in the original petition are not entitled to get any reliefs as claimed. He was a teacher in a school and getting only less income and with that, he will have to maintain her mother as well. The quantum of maintenance claimed is exorbitant. So he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 3. PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exts.A1 to A4 series, A5, A6, A6(a), A7, A8 series, A9 to A11, A12 series, A13 series, A14 series and A15 series were marked on the side of the respondents herein. The appellant was examined as RW1 and Exts. B1 to B7 series were marked on his side. After considering the evidence on record, the court below found that the first respondent had proved that 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments were taken by the appellant and the same were not returned and he is liable to return the same. The Court below also found that the medical expenses claimed were not met by the respondent in the Court below and he is liable to pay that amount also. The Court below also found that the medical expenses claimed were not met by the respondent in the Court below and he is liable to pay that amount also. The Court below also fixed the monthly maintenance payable at Rs.3,700/- to the first petitioner and Rs.800/- to the second petitioner for a period of 7½ months and granted a decree for Rs.33,750/- at that rate and decreed the suit accordingly. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/respondent before the Court below. 4. Heard Sri. P. Ali, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. J.R. Prem Navaz, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no evidence to show the entrustment and there is conflict in the evidence of PWs 1 and 4 regarding the manner in which the gold ornaments were obtained for the purpose of giving the same to the first respondent at the time of her marriage. Further, the evidence of PW1 herself will go to show that she was being looked after by the respondent, who is the appellant herein and as such, the Court below should not have granted the decree for return of gold ornaments and also the medical expenses. Further, this Court in the revision filed as RPFC.No.423/2009 against the order in MC.No.203/2009 of Family Court, Malappuram which was disposed of along with this case reduced the quantum of maintenance payable to the first petitioner, who is the first respondent herein as Rs.3,000/- while confirming the maintenance payable to the child at the rate of Rs.800/- per month. The appellant is a physically handicapped person. So the Court below should not have granted the relief of maintenance as claimed. So he prayed for interference of the order passed by the Court below. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that the Court below had considered all the aspects in the right perspective and rightly decreed the original petition which do not call for any interference. 7. The factum of the marriage between the first respondent and the appellant and the birth of the child namely the second respondent in that wedlock is not in dispute. 7. The factum of the marriage between the first respondent and the appellant and the birth of the child namely the second respondent in that wedlock is not in dispute. According to the first respondent, at the time of marriage, 3½ sovereigns of mahr was fixed and 35½ sovereigns of gold ornaments were given out of which 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments were taken by her husband, who is the appellant herein, for the purpose of pledging the same, thereafter it was not returned. Further she had to undergo certain treatment for her illness and delivery expenses were not met by the appellant. So she claimed for return of gold ornaments of 20 sovereigns or its value of Rs.2,29,600/- and Rs.15,000/- towards delivery expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards treatment expenses and also Rs.7,000/- and Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance for 7½ months for herself and the child respectively. These allegations were denied by the respondent/appellant herein. In order to prove the case of the respondents, the first respondent herself was examined as PW1 and her father was examined as PW2 and the goldsmith, who manufactured the gold ornaments and given was examined as PW4 and one witness was examined as PW3 who attended the marriage and the betrothal. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 will go to show that at the time of marriage 35½ sovereigns of gold ornaments were given and 3½ sovereigns was fixed as meher. Though it was admitted by PWs 1 and 2 that in the Mujahideen sect of Muslims there was no practice of demanding dowry, but at time of marriage gold ornaments used to be given to the girl children who were given in marriage and that was the practice. The appellant also has no case that no gold ornaments were given. His case was that he was not aware of the quantum of gold ornaments were given and it was less than 20 sovereigns. It is true that PW4 the goldsmith had a case that some old gold ornaments were given for the purpose of manufacture of gold ornaments for the marriage of the first respondent, but Pws 1 and 2 have no such a case. But that alone is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that there was no gold ornaments given at all especially when the quantum of gold ornaments given was not disputed by the appellant. But that alone is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that there was no gold ornaments given at all especially when the quantum of gold ornaments given was not disputed by the appellant. According to him, he did not know the quantum of gold ornaments given. So under such circumstances, the Court below was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that 35½ sovereigns of gold ornaments were given at the time of marriage. 8. As regards the entrustment of 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments, PW1 had categorically stated that on one Nabi day, about 11 months ago, the appellant had taken 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments for the purpose of pledging the same and thereafter it was not returned. PW3 had also deposed that he had intervened in the matter and at that time, the appellant had admitted the factum of 20 sovereign of gold ornaments which he had pledged and he will return the same. So under such circumstances, the Court below was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments were taken by the respondent for the purpose of pledging the same and it was not returned and he has either to return those gold ornaments or its value which has been claimed as Rs.2,29,600/- and rightly decreed by the Court below which do not call for any interference. 9. As regards delivery expenses and medical expenses are concerned, PW1 had given evidence that even after delivery, she had to undergo treatment and no amount was paid by the appellant for that purpose. The evidence of RW1 on this aspect also will go to show that he had in way admitted that he had not given any amount for further treatment and he was not aware of the fact as to whether she had been treated for some other purpose. He had admitted in evidence that he did not know that she had taken a scan on 24.11.2008 and he did not know whether the stitch put after delivery was broken and she had been treated in the hospital for another 20 days for that purpose and he had also admitted that he did not give any amount for this purpose. He had also admitted that he did not know as to whether she had been taken to Kozhikode and Tirur for treatment and also she had undergone treatment under native physician Sri.Mohommedkutty. He had also stated that he did not know as to whether she had admitted in Alfisha Hospital and spent Rs.25,000/- for her treatment and he did not pay any amount for that purpose. So all these things will go to show that he was not aware of the expenses incurred for treatment which has been claimed by the first respondent. These expenses were proved by Exts.A4 series, A5, A6, A6(a), A7, A8 series, A9 to A11, A12 series, A13 series, A14 series and A15 series. So the Court below was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that he is liable to pay Rs.15,000/- towards the expenses incurred in connection with delivery and also Rs.25,000/- for her treatment which she had incurred for treating for some ailments which she suffered and this finding of the Court below do not call for any interference. 10. As regards the maintenance aspect is concerned, the appellant had no case that the first respondent had any employment of her own and getting any income which is sufficient to maintain herself and the child. He had no case that after she left the house, he had paid any maintenance to her. It is an admitted fact that he was working as a teacher in a school and getting a regular income which he had admitted and proved by producing Ext.B2. He had also admitted that there is increase in dearness allowance and his income has been increased. It is also brought out in evidence that the amount sent by him is meager and that was the reason why the first respondent had refused to receive the amount which he had sent by money order evidenced by Ext.B7 series. So under such circumstances, the Court below was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that he is liable to pay past maintenance to the wife and the child. The Court below had fixed monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,700/- and Rs.800/- to the first petitioner and second petitioner respectively for 7½ months. So under such circumstances, the Court below was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that he is liable to pay past maintenance to the wife and the child. The Court below had fixed monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,700/- and Rs.800/- to the first petitioner and second petitioner respectively for 7½ months. The case was tried along with MC.No.203/2009 and future maintenance was also allowed on the same rate but the appellant herein filed RPFC.No.423/2009 before this Court and this Court has reduced the monthly maintenance payable to the first respondent herein as Rs.3,000/- while confirming the maintenance fixed for the child. This fact was admitted by the counsel for the respondents as well. So under such circumstances, this Court feels that some modification can be made for the monthly maintenance payable to the first respondent wife and the same can be reduced to Rs.3,000/-. So the appellant will be liable to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the first respondent towards past maintenance and Rs.800/- per month to the child and he is liable to pay that amount for a period of 7½ months as claimed by the petitioners in the original petition before the Court below and as such he is liable to pay Rs.28,500/- as past maintenance instead of Rs.33,750/- fixed by the Court below. He is entitled to get adjustment of the amount if any paid by him towards interim maintenance ordered at the rate of Rs.2,000/- as found by the Court below. 11. So the appeal is allowed in part. The order passed by the Court below directing the appellant to pay Rs.2,29,600/- towards value of gold ornaments of 20 sovereigns, Rs.15,000/- towards delivery expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards treatment expenses totallying an amount of Rs.3,03,350/- together with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the petition till realization with cost is hereby confirmed. The order passed by the Court below directing the appellant to pay Rs.2,29,600/- towards value of gold ornaments of 20 sovereigns, Rs.15,000/- towards delivery expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards treatment expenses totallying an amount of Rs.3,03,350/- together with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the petition till realization with cost is hereby confirmed. The order of the Court below directing the appellant to pay past maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/- to the child for 7½ months is also hereby confirmed, but the monthly maintenance payable to the first respondent fixed as Rs.3,700/- is reduced to Rs.3,000/- per month which the appellant is liable to pay for a period of 7½ months totallying an amount of Rs.28,500/- including the past maintenance payable to the child instead of Rs.33,750/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till payment less the amount of Rs.2,000/-, if any paid, which was granted by way of interim maintenance as found by the Court below. With the above modifications of the decree and judgment of the Court below, the appeal is allowed in part and disposed of accordingly. Parties are directed to bear their respective costs in the appeal. Interim order of stay granted is vacated and I.A.No.3470/2009 is dismissed. The amount, if any, deposited by the appellant in compliance of the order of stay shall be adjusted towards the amount payable as per this judgment and he needs to pay only the balance amount. The amount, if any, deposited shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the respondents herein. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this judgment to the Court below at the earliest.