JUDGMENT Mary Joseph, J The judgment of Family Court, Alappuzha in O.P.(HMA) No.92 of 2010 is under challenge in the appeal on hand preferred by the respondent. The original petition was filed by Smt.Usha seeking recovery of gold, patrimony and maintenance. Counter claim was also raised by the respondent seeking restitution of conjugal rights and custody of minor, who is the 2nd petitioner in the Original Petition. 2. Judgment was rendered by the Family Court allowing the claims made by the petitioners and dismissing the counter claim of the respondent. The respondent being aggrieved thereby, preferred the appeal on hand. 3. Smt. Bindu Sreekumar, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and therefore, the judgment suffers from illegality, impropriety and infirmity. According to her, the evidence adduced by the 1st respondent was not considered by the court in its true spirit and it infact had gone to the extent of granting the reliefs as such, without any basis. The Family Court has allowed huge sum towards value of gold ornaments and maintenance to the 1st petitioner beyond the financial capacity of the respondent to pay it, especially in a context wherein cogent evidence was not forthcoming from the petitioner to establish the latter's income. According to her, the respondent has paid the entire arrears of maintenance ordered in M.C.No.12 of 2010 and continues to pay the monthly maintenance and those aspects are overlooked by the Family Court, while awarding maintenance further. Raising contentions as above, the judgment is sought to be set aside. The dismissal of counter claim was not under challenge. 4. The marriage among the parties was solemnised on 03.07.2005 at the residence of the 1st petitioner in accordance with the custom prevalent in Hindu-Ezhava community to which they belong. A male child was born in the marriage on 03.08.2006. 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.1,00,000/-were given to the 1st petitioner by her parents at the time of marriage and those were misappropriated by the respondent. The petitioner was subjected to ill treatment, mentally as well as physically, raising reasons against her physical outlook and insufficient dowry brought. Herself and the child were thrown out from the matrimonial home in neglect, denying even maintenance for their sustenance. 5. The petitioner was subjected to ill treatment, mentally as well as physically, raising reasons against her physical outlook and insufficient dowry brought. Herself and the child were thrown out from the matrimonial home in neglect, denying even maintenance for their sustenance. 5. According to the petitioner, the respondent is employed and earning Rs.10,000/-monthly from his job and Rs.5,000/-from the landed property of 1 acre belonging to him. She is having no job or income of her own and the sustenance of herself and child was managed purely from the help offered by neighbours. When the efforts to settle their differences failed and the marital relationship was found irretrievably broken, the petitioner was constrained to file the petition seeking return of gold ornaments, patrimony and maintenance from August, 2008 onwards, from the respondent. 6. In the counter statement, the respondent has totally denied entrustment of any gold ornaments to him. According to him, it is a falsehood to state that the petitioner has adorned 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage. According to him, she had only 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and those were never entrusted to him. According to him, respondent had given the 2nd petitioner 5 ½ sovereigns of gold ornaments and those were also kept locked by the 1st petitioner herself in her almirah. 7 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given by her to her brother without their consent for pledging and those were sold by him later. According to the respondent, his brother in law when questioned by him has agreed to redeem the gold ornaments pledged. He failed to do so and therefore, quarrel ensued among himself and his brother in law on the issue. Thus, petitioners were taken to the parental home by her brother and she had taken the entire gold ornaments alongwith. Thereafter, attempts were made severally to restore the marital relationship, but, all those failed due to the adamant stand of the 1st petitioner not to return and join the matrimonial home. The 1st petitioner is employed in a yarn factory and was earning Rs.100/-per day therefrom and Rs.100/-, from plying an autorickshaw owned by her and therefore is not entitled to get any maintenance. Rs.1,00,000/-was given at the time of marriage and the entire expenses relating to the marriage were met with that. 1st petitioner is liable to resume the conjugal relationship. Rs.1,00,000/-was given at the time of marriage and the entire expenses relating to the marriage were met with that. 1st petitioner is liable to resume the conjugal relationship. M.C.No.12 of 2010 and the petition on hand were filed by the 1st petitioner not because she is entitled for that but with the sole view to wreck vengeance. Therefore, counter claim seeking restitution of conjugal rights and custody of 2nd petitioner was raised by him and the O.P was sought to be dismissed. 7. Replication was filed by the petitioner against counter claim reiterating the averments in the original petition and denying specifically the allegation that the gold ornaments were in her custody itself. 8. The main argument of the learned counsel was that pleadings in particular are lacking in the original petition regarding entrustment of gold ornaments to the respondent. According to him, the only plea incorporated in the Original Petition was that 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments given to the petitioner at the time of marriage were misappropriated by respondents. According to him, the 1st petitioner has failed to establish the source of income, the respondent was having to meet her claim for maintenance. It is contended by the learned counsel that the Original Petition ought to have been dismissed by the Family Court in that context. 9. In the backdrop, when the main challenge of the respondent was against adequacy of pleadings in the Original Petition, a scrutiny was done on that count. It is true that the word 'entrustment' is not specifically used in the pleadings. The plea taken was that the petitioner was given 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.1,00,000/-at the time of her marriage and the gold ornaments were misappropriated by the respondent. For misappropriation, primarily the gold ornaments must be taken in custody. Taking custody can either be by way of voluntary entrustment or by forcible measures. Here is a wife raising serious allegations that she was ill treated by her husband both mentally and physically for reasons of her dark complexion and the meager dowry brought at the time of marriage. She had tendered her own testimony as PW1 about the ill treatment meted out by her at the matrimonial home. Two witnesses were also examined as PW2 and PW3. PW2 is the Secretary of SNDP Sakha No.519 and PW3 is the Secretary of SNDP Sakha No.738 of Vettakkal Branch. She had tendered her own testimony as PW1 about the ill treatment meted out by her at the matrimonial home. Two witnesses were also examined as PW2 and PW3. PW2 is the Secretary of SNDP Sakha No.519 and PW3 is the Secretary of SNDP Sakha No.738 of Vettakkal Branch. Their versions lend clear support to her version. 10. The specific plea taken by the respondent in the counter statement was that the petitioner had brought only 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage. According to him, those ornaments were kept locked in an almirah by the petitioner herself. According to him, out of 15 sovereigns, 7 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given by her to her brother for procuring loan by pledging, without his consent. The rest of the ornaments in her custody were taken alongwith, at the time when she shifted her residence to her parental home permanently. 11. Admittedly, Rs.1,00,000/-was given to the respondent by petitioner's parents at the time of marriage and the money was utilised for meeting expenses related to marriage. During cross examination, respondent had gone to the extent of stating that the petitioner had 10-15 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The evidence tendered as above is against the respondent's precise plea in the counter statement that the petitioner had worn 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. The respondent has also spoken that 7 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given by the 1st petitioner to her brother without his knowledge and consent. During cross examination he has stated that his brother in law was questioned by him and he had agreed to return the gold ornaments after getting those redeemed from pledge. The respondent had also taken a stand at the same time that the pledged gold ornaments were sold by his brother in law. According to him frequent quarrels ensued among them for the said reason. In view of the inconsistencies in the pleadings and oral evidence tendered by RW1, his credibility is lost and the evidence tendered is discarded. 12. In the counter statement, RW1 has stated categorically that the 1st petitioner had 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments. During examination as RW1, he had taken a stand deviating therefrom by deposing to have no specific idea about the exact quantity of gold ornaments possessed by her. 12. In the counter statement, RW1 has stated categorically that the 1st petitioner had 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments. During examination as RW1, he had taken a stand deviating therefrom by deposing to have no specific idea about the exact quantity of gold ornaments possessed by her. But, even if he pretends to have no idea or control over the gold ornaments possessed by the petitioner, he was categoric on his allegation that seven sovereigns of gold ornaments were given by the petitioner to her brother and pledged by him. It is discerned therefrom that he has clear idea about the exact quantum of gold ornaments possessed by the petitioner and had also maintained control over those, but pretend to be ignorant. The corroborative versions of PW1 to PW3 when evaluated thoroughly, the position derived is that, 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.1,00,000/-were given to the petitioner at the time of her marriage. PW1 has categorically deposed that gold ornaments possessed by her were misappropriated by RW1. Rs.1,00,000/-was admitted as received by respondent and explained that the marriage expenses were met with that. 13. Admittedly the marriage was on 03.07.2005, solemnized at the residence of the 1st petitioner. 2nd petitioner was born on 03.08.2006. Both petitioners and respondent were living together happily till 31.08.2008. Exts.A4 to A6 are produced to prove that even prior to seizin of the issues by the court, it was seized by SNDP Sakhas to which the parties belong. When the efforts taken at the sakhas turned futile, the parties were constrained to approach the court to pursue with legal remedies. Ext.X1 is the minutes of the Sakhas which clearly endorse the efforts taken to settle the issues. Ext.A2 legal notice was evidenced as sent and served upon the petitioners. Ext.B3 reply notice was sent. PW1 has spoken categorically and precisely about the harsh treatment meted out against her by the respondent at the matrimonial home. The versions of PW2 and PW3 clearly support PW1. Documents referred to supra also manifest that attempts for reunion ended in failure. The Family Court has also found force in the evidence adduced by the petitioner and reached a conclusion that the marriage among PW1 and RW1 has been irretrievably broken. In that backdrop, the Family Court has rightly declined to pass a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and rejected the counter claim raised by the respondent. 14. The Family Court has also found force in the evidence adduced by the petitioner and reached a conclusion that the marriage among PW1 and RW1 has been irretrievably broken. In that backdrop, the Family Court has rightly declined to pass a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and rejected the counter claim raised by the respondent. 14. Ext.A1 series are copies of extracts of the marriage register, maintained at Sakha No.519 where the marriage of the parties was registered. PW2 is the Secretary of SNDP Sakha No.519. According to him, he had attended both betrothal and marriage ceremony. He deposed that, on the day of marriage petitioner had worn 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments, and Rs.1,00,000/-was also given to the 1st respondent on that day. The 1st petitioner's claim was that Rs.1,00,000/-is equivalent to the price of 21 ½ sovereigns and therefore, she is entitled to get 46 ½ sovereigns or 372 gms of gold as particularly endorsed in Ext.A1 series. Admittedly, the endorsement was attested by PW2 as a witness. PW3 is none other than the Secretary of SNDP Sakha No.738 to which the respondent belongs. According to him, the marriage was attended by him and has attested the description of gold ornaments detailed by the parents of the petitioner in Ext.A1 series. 15. According to RW1, PW1 had only 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and those were kept in the custody of the 1st petitioner herself. 1st petitioner was given a Thali chain and wedding ring respectively weighing 8 and 2 sovereigns by his brother and those were also kept in her custody. A pair of bangles and anklets totally weighing 5 ½ sovereigns were also given to the 2nd petitioner by his mother and those were also taken by the 1st petitioner alongwith at the time when she left the matrimonial home. He would also say that the Thali chain and dresses were bought and the other expenses related to the marriage were met with Rs.1,00,000/-given to him by the father of the 1st petitioner. 7 sovereigns were also given to 1st petitioner's brother to meet his personal needs by pledging the same. 16. RW2 is the paternal brother of the respondent. According to him, he was the guardian of the marriage ceremony and Rs.1,30,000/-was entrusted to him by the mother of the respondent for meeting the expenses relating to the marriage. 7 sovereigns were also given to 1st petitioner's brother to meet his personal needs by pledging the same. 16. RW2 is the paternal brother of the respondent. According to him, he was the guardian of the marriage ceremony and Rs.1,30,000/-was entrusted to him by the mother of the respondent for meeting the expenses relating to the marriage. He would say that utilising Rs.40,000/-out of that, a Thali chain of 8 sovereigns and wedding dress worth Rs.10,000/-were purchased. Rs.15,000/-each were spent towards food and arrangements at the auditorium. Rs.6000/-and Rs.3000/-respectively were also spent towards transportation and other miscellaneous matters. However, at one moment though he had pleaded total ignorance about the quantum of gold ornaments possessed by the 1st petitioner, on the next moment he had gone to the extent of stating that the petitioner had 10-15 sovereigns of gold ornaments. He has also given a version contrary to the one spoken by RW1 that the entire expenses of marriage were met from Rs.1,00,000/-paid to him by the 1st petitioner's father. 17. RW3, a neighbour of respondent has stated that it was the 1st petitioner who left the company of the respondent. According to him gold ornaments of 1st petitioner were misappropriated by her brother and for that reason, PW1 and RW1 were in inimical terms. RW3 has also spoken that the 1st petitioner and the child had worn gold ornaments at the time when they left the matrimonial home. The version being highly inconsistent, credence is difficult to be placed on it. 18. The aforesaid evidence tendered by RW1 to RW3 when analysed critically, it is disclosed that RW1 has got a specific case that 1st petitioner was in possession only of 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and seven sovereigns out of it were given to her brother for pledging. According to him, though petitioner's brother agreed to redeem the gold ornaments pledged, those were sold by him. The remaining gold ornaments and those given to the child were taken by PW1 at the time when she abandoned the matrimonial home. 19. RW2, though claimed to be the guardian of the marriage ceremony has a totally different version from that spoken by RW1 that the marriage expenses were met from Rs.1,30,000/-given to him by RW1's mother. He has no case that Rs.1,00,000/-, the entrustment of which was admitted by RW1, was utilised for meeting the marriage expenses. 19. RW2, though claimed to be the guardian of the marriage ceremony has a totally different version from that spoken by RW1 that the marriage expenses were met from Rs.1,30,000/-given to him by RW1's mother. He has no case that Rs.1,00,000/-, the entrustment of which was admitted by RW1, was utilised for meeting the marriage expenses. RW1 has never introduced RW2 as the guardian who had transacted the affairs of his marriage. If RW2 was the guardian of the marriage, he cannot plead ignorance about the quantum of gold ornaments given to PW1 by her parents and worn on the date of marriage. RW3 is a neighbour of RW1 and has spoken in categoric terms that the gold ornaments of PW1 and the child were taken by the petitioner on the day when she left the matrimonial home permanently. RW3 being only a neighbour, his claim of knowledge of the factum cannot be given much credence to. 20. In view of the inconsistencies in the versions of RW1 to RW3, the defence of the respondent is thoroughly defeated. The entrustment alone was denied by the respondent in counter statement. Misappropriation pleaded and deposed was not denied specifically. On the contrary, he had attempted to convince the court that 7 sovereigns were misused by 1st petitioner's own brother and the rest were kept in petitioner's custody itself. But, the respondent failed in his attempt to establish those aspects by adducing cogent evidence. Therefore, the version of PW1 that 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs. 1,00,000/-were misappropriated by RW1 after her marriage with him is only to be believed. 21. It is true that the word 'entrustment' is not used in the Original Petition. But, the word 'misappropriation' is used. Unless the gold ornaments are taken into custody, those cannot be misappropriated. Ext.A1 series would make it clear that 46½ sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to the petitioner at the time of marriage. According to PW1, 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.1,00,000/-were given to her by her parents. According to him, Rs.1,00,000/-given in cash is equivalent to 21½ sovereigns of gold ornaments and together it formed 46½ sovereigns. As already stated neither the cross examination of PW1 to PW3 nor examination of RW1 to RW3 did not help the respondent to establish the defence taken by him. According to him, Rs.1,00,000/-given in cash is equivalent to 21½ sovereigns of gold ornaments and together it formed 46½ sovereigns. As already stated neither the cross examination of PW1 to PW3 nor examination of RW1 to RW3 did not help the respondent to establish the defence taken by him. PW1's version is believable and the Family Court had rightly relied on it and thereby granted the decree for return of gold ornaments and money. 22. It is established from the discussion supra that the petitioner was living separately from the respondent since 2008 onwards and attempts for reunion from every corner failed. It is also evident that the 2nd petitioner was being looked after by her. It has come out in evidence that the petitioner was staying away from respondent for valid reasons. It is established that she is unemployed and has no source of income. Though the respondent raised a challenge on her claim, contra evidence was not adduced by placing reliable materials. Therefore, her claim that she has no source of income to sustain her life and that of the child is only to be believed. The Family Court has found force in her claim and accordingly a sum of Rs.1000/-per month was ordered as maintenance and the respondent was directed to pay it from 27.01.2010 onwards. 23. It is relevant to notice that M.C No.12/2010 was allowed earlier and a sum of Rs.500/-was directed to be paid to her by the respondent. Petitioner has a case that no amount is paid towards maintenance. Respondent has not brought any material to establish otherwise. If any amount is already paid by the respondent towards maintenance, it is open for him to seek adjustment of the same while complying with the direction in the impugned order. For the forgoing reasons, the impugned judgment deserves to be confirmed. In the result, Mat appeal is dismissed.