JUDGMENT : Sophy Thomas, J. The questions arising for consideration in this appeal are, whether the Family Court was justified in granting the alternative relief alone without granting a decree for recovery of gold, and what shall be the crucial date for determining the value of gold, while granting the alternative relief of its market value, the date of purchase, date of petition, date of decree or the date of payment? 2. The appellants are the wife and children of the respondent. They are the petitioners in O.P.No.617 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court, Nedumangad. They filed that O.P for return of gold ornaments weighing 521.600 gms or in the alternative, its equivalent value, along with maintenance, past and future. The respondent/husband remained ex-parte. The Family Court, vide judgment dated 30.04.2021, decreed the O.P., allowing the first appellant to realise a sum of Rs.5,59,100/-towards value of 521.600gms of gold ornaments with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition, along with maintenance to the appellants, both past and future. The appellants are challenging that judgment and decree with respect to relief No.1, awarding an amount of Rs.5,59,100/-only towards value of 521.600gms of gold ornaments. The Family Court did not consider their claim for prevailing market value of gold ornaments. The gold ornaments given to the 1st appellant at the time of marriage were taken away by the respondent/husband after one month of marriage, making her to believe that, it will be kept in bank locker for safe custody. She has got every right to get back her gold ornaments or its equivalent value at the time of return. The Family Court valued her 521.600gms of gold ornaments @ Rs.5,59,100/-and it is arbitrary and illegal. Hence this appeal. 3. Even after service of notice, the respondent remained ex-parte before the Family Court. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked to prove the case of the appellants. The Family Court found that, the 1st appellant was having 521.600 gms of gold ornaments at the time of marriage and it was entrusted with the respondent/husband, as a trustee for safe keeping in bank locker. In the decree there was no direction to return the gold ornaments in specie. For 521.600 gms of gold ornaments the market value awarded was only Rs.5,59,100/- and that is under challenge. 4. In the decree there was no direction to return the gold ornaments in specie. For 521.600 gms of gold ornaments the market value awarded was only Rs.5,59,100/- and that is under challenge. 4. The respondent remained ex parte in the appeal also, even after service of notice. 5. Let us see whether the Family Court was justified in granting only the alternative relief, without giving a decree for return of 521.600gms of gold ornaments. 6. The Specific Relief Act, 1963 contemplates recovery of movable property, only in cases, which can be brought under Sections 7 and 8, which relate to specific movable property. 7. It may be beneficial to extract Sections 7 and 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for a proper understanding of the statutory provisions dealing with recovery of specific movable property. Section 7 reads thus: Recovery of specific movable property.—A person entitled to the possession of specific movable property may recover it in the manner provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908). Explanation 1.—A trustee may sue under this section for the possession of movable property to the beneficial interest in which the person for whom he is trustee is entitled. Explanation 2.—A special or temporary right to the present possession of movable property is sufficient to support a suit under this section. 8. Section 8 of the above Act deals with liability of person in possession, not as owner, to deliver to persons entitled to immediate possession. It says that 'any person having the possession or control of a particular article of movable property, of which he is not the owner, may be compelled specifically to deliver it to the person entitled to its immediate possession, in any of the following cases:— (a) when the thing claimed is held by the defendant as the agent or trustee of the plaintiff; (b) when compensation in money would not afford the plaintiff adequate relief for the loss of the thing claimed; (c) when it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the actual damage caused by its loss; (d) when the possession of the thing claimed has been wrongfully transferred from the plaintiff. Explanation.—Unless and until the contrary is proved, the court shall, in respect of any article of movable property claimed under clause (b) or clause (c) of this section, presume— (a) that compensation in money would not afford the plaintiff adequate relief for the loss of the thing claimed, or, as the case may be; (b) that it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the actual damage caused by its loss”. 9. The Specific Relief Act, 1963 does not contain any provision under which a general claim for movable property in kind could be sustained. Where the claim is of such a general nature, its satisfaction is to be afforded by a decree for the money value of such movable property. When the claim is for specific movable property, Section 7 says that, recovery of the same can be allowed in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. The reference is obviously to Rule 10 of Order XX and Rule 31 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no other provision in CPC prescribing the procedure for enforcement of a claim for movable property. Order XX Rule 10 of CPC reads as follows: “10. Decree for delivery of movable property.— Where the suit is for movable property, and the decree is for the delivery of such property, the decree shall also state the amount of money to be paid as an alternative if delivery cannot be had”. 10. In Ouseph Ouseph vs. Souriyar Thomman ( 1954 KLT 463 (FB)), this Court held that when Sections 10 and 11 of the Specific Relief Act (Sections 7 and 8 in the 1963 Act) is read with Rule 10 of Order XX of CPC, there can be no doubt that Rule 10 of Order XX of CPC applies only to suits for specific movable property. The Rule applies to suits for recovery of movable property in specie i.e. the very property itself and not for any substitute for that property. Such an action in detinue would lie only for a specific article of movable property capable of being recovered in specie, and of being seized and delivered to the appellant, through the process of court. Where there is no possibility of recovering the identical property, the only enforceable remedy that can be granted will be by way of a decree for the value of the article. 11. Where there is no possibility of recovering the identical property, the only enforceable remedy that can be granted will be by way of a decree for the value of the article. 11. In normal human conduct, every girl will have a dream of becoming a beautiful queen on the wedding day bedecked with ornaments and costumes of her choice. It is conventional that, when a girl child is born, parents start buying gold ornaments for her, to be presented to her at the time of marriage. So, apart from the price of the metal, it carries their love, affection and emotions towards their daughter. Sometimes, grandmothers and aunts may also gift their ornaments to the bride, and she may take all those ornaments to her matrimonial home along with the sweet memories of their love and care towards her. 12. After marriage, her ornaments might have been entrusted with her husband or his parents for safekeeping in locker or for pledging to meet their urgent needs, or they might have received it for some other purposes on the assurance that, it will be returned to her. Sometimes, those ornaments might have been misused by them without her knowledge and consent. That entrustment of gold ornaments by the wife with the husband or in-laws is in a trust, and they are liable to return the ornaments in specie, when it is demanded back as stipulated in Sections 7 and 8 of the Specific Relief Act. 13. Since the appellant/wife had specifically prayed for recovery of her gold ornaments scheduled in the petition, and the Family Court was convinced of the entrustment of the scheduled gold ornaments with the respondent/husband, there was no justification for granting the alternative relief alone, instead of the main relief of recovery of the gold ornaments. So, going by Rule 10 of order XX CPC the Family Court ought to have granted a decree for recovery of gold ornaments and also in the alternative, a decree for the market value of gold, in case its delivery cannot be had. 14. Now the next question to be considered is, in case the delivery cannot be made of the specific movables prayed for, what shall be the amount to be decreed as an alternative relief. 15. Section 24(1)(a) of the Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 reads thus: 24. 14. Now the next question to be considered is, in case the delivery cannot be made of the specific movables prayed for, what shall be the amount to be decreed as an alternative relief. 15. Section 24(1)(a) of the Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 reads thus: 24. Suits for movable property.—(1) In a suit for movable property other than documents of title, fee shall be computed— (a) where the subject-matter has a market value, on such value; or (b) where the subject-matter has no market value, on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint...”. 16. Order VII Rule 1(i) of CPC says that, the plaint shall contain a statement of the value of the subject-matter of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and of court-fees, so far as the case admits. 17. Order VII Rule 2 reads thus: “2. In money suits.- Where the plaintiff seeks the recovery of money, the plaint shall state the precise amount claimed. But where the plaintiff sues for mesne profits, or for an amount which will be found due to him on taking unsettled accounts between him and the defendant, or for movables in the possession of the defendant, or for debts of which the value he cannot, after the exercise of reasonable diligence, estimate, the plaint shall state approximately the amount or value sued for”. So, the plaintiff/petitioner claiming gold ornaments has to state the value of gold claimed, for the purpose of valuation, and he/she might have shown the value on the date of its purchase or the value as on the date of filing the suit. But, in original petitions filed before Family Court, whatever be the valuation of the subject matter, fixed court fee of Rs.50/- alone need be paid as per Schedule II Article 11(l)(2) (ii) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. 18. In the case in hand, the prayer in the O.P was to recover 521.600 gms of gold ornaments. In the petition schedule, it was mentioned that the purchase price of that gold was Rs.5,59,100/-. The alternative relief prayed for was to recover the value equivalent to the gold ornaments from the respondent and his assets. 18. In the case in hand, the prayer in the O.P was to recover 521.600 gms of gold ornaments. In the petition schedule, it was mentioned that the purchase price of that gold was Rs.5,59,100/-. The alternative relief prayed for was to recover the value equivalent to the gold ornaments from the respondent and his assets. The Family Court seems to have been carried away by the purchase price shown in the schedule, and granted a decree for recovery of that amount, and that is under challenge. 19. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was in the year 2007. So, her gold ornaments might have been purchased in the year 2007. The original petition was filed in the year 2016 i.e. after nine years of marriage. That O.P was decreed on 30.04.2021 i.e. after 14 years of their marriage. So, the respondent/husband, who was found liable for her 521.600gms of gold ornaments, was called upon to pay the market value of gold as on the date of its purchase, and definitely it will workout injustice for the appellant/wife. 20. We all know that, the graph of gold price has been steadily rising over these years. A girl married in the year 2007 might have purchased gold ornaments at the rate of Rs.7,000/-per sovereign. When she files a suit in the year 2016 to get back her gold ornaments, the price of gold might have gone upto Rs.21,000/-per sovereign i.e. three times of its purchase value. If the suit was decreed in the year 2021, the gold price might have reached Rs.35,000/- per sovereign i.e. five times of its purchase value. So, a decree for the price of gold, as on the date of its purchase or even the date of petition cannot be justified. 21. The alternative relief of value of gold as on the date of decree also may not work out justice always. If there is appeal against the judgment and decree it may take years together for its disposal, and by that time, the price of gold might have gone beyond proportions. If the respondent/husband is returning the gold ornaments in specie, there is no problem. If there is appeal against the judgment and decree it may take years together for its disposal, and by that time, the price of gold might have gone beyond proportions. If the respondent/husband is returning the gold ornaments in specie, there is no problem. But, in many cases, we find that, even if the husband or in-laws are possessing the gold ornaments of the wife, they find it convenient to pay the alternative relief of its market value on the date of purchase, date of petition or even the date of decree as the case may be, since it may be much less than the actual market rate of gold ornaments held by them. Moreover there is every chance for protracting the matter indefinitely, if ultimately, they need to pay only a meagre amount towards gold value, which was prevailing years back. It will result in gross injustice to the appellant/wife and unlawful enrichment to the respondent/husband. 22. Then let us see what shall be the crucial date for determining the price of gold, to be decreed as an alternative relief? Is it :- (1) the date of purchase? (2) the date of petition? (3) the date of decree? or (4) the date of payment? 23. In Ouseph's case (supra), a Full Bench of this Court had occasion to consider a similar issue. In that decision, it was held that, 'in suits for the enforcement of claims for paddy or other commodities, the decree to be passed must be in terms of the currency of the country and for that purpose the paddy or other commodities have to be commuted into current money at the market rate prevailing on the respective dates when the commodity became payable'. 24. A Division Bench of this Court in William David vs. Linu Mary George ( 2010 (4) KLT 691 ) observed that, “In a case where the alternative relief is significantly not asked for and claimed, the relief which the court thinks just can be granted to the same extent, as if it had been asked for. 24. A Division Bench of this Court in William David vs. Linu Mary George ( 2010 (4) KLT 691 ) observed that, “In a case where the alternative relief is significantly not asked for and claimed, the relief which the court thinks just can be granted to the same extent, as if it had been asked for. Order XX Rule 10 of CPC stipulates that the court has the discretion to stipulate the alternative relief, in a claim for return of movable property and it certainly clothe the court with power/discretion to issue appropriate directions, regarding alternative general relief that can be granted in cases, where specific movable property is not returned to the appellant in pursuance of the direction issued in the suit”. That decision further says that, “The purpose of the proceedings under the Family Courts Act cannot be to grant decrees to the seekers of justice when such decree would virtually deny them justice in its crux. So, the courts would be justified in issuing directions, which will effectively do justice to the parties when it comes to a claim for return of articles. Interest of justice must be borne in mind and it must be ensured that adequate compensation is assured to the claimant by appropriate direction, if the respondent does not return the gold ornaments.” It was further observed that, “Alternative direction for payment of money for gold ornaments is working out great hardship, injustice and perversity. The price of gold is increased to that extent, that the husbands would find it much easier and convenient to return the cash equivalent to the gold ornaments on the date of the petition with interest, even when they have the gold with them. The system must be able to device methods by which the contumacious party does not derive advantage by retaining the gold ornaments and returning their cash equivalent on the date of purchase, on the date of the petition or on the date of judgment”. 25. A Division Bench of this Court in Thomas M. Varghese vs. Sonia Susan Thomas ( 2014 (3) KLT 487 ) held that, where the petitioner makes a definite claim for return of gold, either in kind or in the alternative its value on the date of application, the petitioner cannot subsequently claim for return of the value of the gold on the date of execution. That was a case where the prayer of the petitioner as such was decreed and there was no appeal against the decree, by the petitioner. An appeal was preferred by the respondents in the original petition challenging the decree granted to the petitioner. In that appeal, the respondent/wife made a claim for the value of gold ornaments as on the date of execution based on William David's case (supra). The Division Bench observed that, the power of the court under Order XX Rule 10 of CPC and Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC could be used only in a situation where the court grants an executable decree in the appeal. The power of the appellate court to consider the worth of the gold ornaments as on the date of actual return i.e. execution of the order, arises only in a situation where the powers under Order XX Rule 10 and/or Order XLI Rule 33 CPC are invoked by the appellate court in the course of passing a decree in the appeal. Since that appeal was preferred by the respondents challenging the decree granted in favour of the wife and there was no appeal from the part of the wife, the appellate court was unable to exercise its powers under Order XX Rule 10 or under Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC. 26. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 29.11.2018 in Mat.Appeal No.353 of 2009 (Prajila vs. Madhuhari) (unreported) observed that, considering the increase in value of gold ornaments over a period of time, the Family Court should have taken into consideration the increase in price of the value of gold, as well. 27. The Apex Court, in its judgment dated 06.12.2019 in Crl.Appeal No.1850 of 2019 (Priya Prabhakaran & Anr. vs. D.Santhosh Kumar & Ors.(unreported), was pleased to observe that, the High Court was not justified in restricting the value of 51 sovereigns of gold at Rs.4,59,000/-, the value which was quantified on the date of filing of the application, which will result in miscarriage of justice. If the 1st appellant cannot have the return of the 51 sovereigns of gold, she was entitled to the refund of the value of the 51 sovereigns, on the date of the repayment. If the 1st appellant cannot have the return of the 51 sovereigns of gold, she was entitled to the refund of the value of the 51 sovereigns, on the date of the repayment. So, the Apex Court was of the view that for doing justice to the parties, while ordering payment of amount in lieu of return of gold ornaments, it shall be valued as on the date of repayment. 28. A Division Bench of this Court, in its judgment dated 14.01.2022 in Mat.Appeal No.597 of 2013 (Vinod & Ors. vs. Soumya) (unreported) had occasion to consider the market value of gold to be decreed as an alternative relief in a claim for recovery of gold. This Court held that, the market value of gold has been sky rocketed during the past ten years. If the appellants are directed in the alternative to pay the market value of the gold as on June 2013, definitely, it will workout injustice to the respondent/wife. So, for 45.85 sovereigns of gold ornaments, alternative relief of present market value was granted. 29. Admittedly, the plaintiff/petitioner is the master of the suit and he/she can make claims or mould reliefs as he/she likes. When the petitioner files an O.P for recovery of gold ornaments and its value in the alternative, he/she may claim the value as on the date of purchase, date of suit, date of decree or may not even make a claim for alternative relief, if he/she is so particular to get back the gold ornaments in specie. For delayed payment, he/she might have claimed interest also. If a decree was passed as prayed for by the petitioner, definitely, it will bind the parties. The executing court also cannot go beyond the decree and it has to execute the decree as such, unless it has been set aside or modified in appeal or revision. So, wherever a decree has been passed allowing the petitioner, the alternative relief of value of gold ornaments as on date of purchase, date of petition, or the date of decree, as the case may be, with interest for the delayed payment, unless it is set aside or modified in an appeal or revision filed by the aggrieved person, the executing court cannot go for realisation of the market value of gold, as on the date of execution or date of payment. 30. 30. The Apex Court in Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi vs. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman and others ( (1970) 1 SCC 670 ) held that, the executing court cannot go beyond the decree between parties or their representatives; it must take the decree according to its tenor, and cannot entertain any objection that the decree was incorrect in law or on facts. Until it is set aside by an appropriate proceedings in appeal or revision, a decree even if it be erroneous, is still binding between the parties. Hence the executing court has no authority to modify or alter the decree. 31. In Thomas M Vargese's case (supra), this Court found that, the petitioner who obtained a decree as prayed for, and not filing any appeal against the decree, cannot challenge the value of gold ornaments granted as alternative relief under Rule 10 of Order XX CPC or Order XLI Rule 33 CPC, in an appeal filed by the respondent, and the appellate court cannot grant value of gold ornaments as on the date of actual return (i.e. execution of the order). So, it was found that, the power of the appellate court under Order XX Rule 10 CPC and Order XLI Rule 33 CPC could be used only in a situation where the appellate court grants an executable decree in the appeal. Since it was an appeal filed by the respondent/husband, against the judgment and decree granted in favour of the petitioner/wife, allowing recovery of gold, and alternatively its market value, there was no scope for altering the alternative relief granted by the trial court, without any appeal from the part of the petitioner. 32. In William David's case (supra), this Court observed that, when the alternative relief is significantly not asked for and claimed, the relief which the court thinks just can be granted, to the same extent as if it had been asked for. 33. Let us think of a case where the petitioner had asked for alternative relief, but the prayer was for value of the gold as on the date of purchase, date of petition or date of decree along with interest for delayed payment. 33. Let us think of a case where the petitioner had asked for alternative relief, but the prayer was for value of the gold as on the date of purchase, date of petition or date of decree along with interest for delayed payment. As we have already seen the gold ornaments might have been purchased in the year 2007 at the time of marriage, the petition for its recovery might have been filed in the year 2016 and the decree might have been passed in the year 2021. The appeal if any may go upto 2025. So, even if the prayer for alternative relief was absent, or the prayer was for value of gold as on the date of purchase, date of petition, or date of decree as the case may be, Family Court cannot keep a blind eye towards ground realities and while passing a decree, the Family Court can very well grant a decree of alternative relief of the gold value, as on the date of payment, in case the gold ornaments in specie are not returned by the respondent. Otherwise, it will cause gross injustice to the party claiming recovery and unlawful enrichment to the other party who is holding the gold ornaments. If the party possessing the gold ornaments need to pay only its value which was prevailing long back, he may conveniently opt only for return of the value which is much less than the actual market rate. 34. Let us find out whether there is any provision in the Code of Civil Procedure which empowers the court to grant a relief which has not been asked for, for doing justice to the parties. 35. Order VII Rule 7 of CPC reads thus: “7. Relief to be specifically stated.-Every plaint shall state specifically the relief which the plaintiff claims either simply or in the alternative, and it shall not be necessary to ask for general or other relief which may always be given as the court may think just to the same extent as if it had been asked for. And the same rule shall apply to any relief claimed by the defendant in his written statement”. 36. And the same rule shall apply to any relief claimed by the defendant in his written statement”. 36. Going by the above Rule, it shall not be necessary to ask for general or other relief which may always be given as the court may think just to the same extent as if it had been asked for. So, for doing complete justice, the court can grant a general or other relief even if it was not asked, as if it had been asked for. This position has been fortified by a Division Bench of this Court in Anilkumar K vs. Ajith and others ( 2012 (4) KHC 546 ). It was held in that decision that, the general principle is that every relief shall be stated specifically in the plaint. However, the power of the court to grant just and proper relief to a party without his asking, is also recognised by the second part of Order VII Rule 7 of CPC. When the Family Court was convinced of the factum of entrustment of gold ornaments with the husband and in-laws in trust for the wife, and it was not returned after long years of entrustment, nothing prevents the Family Court from granting an alternative relief to award value of gold ornaments as on the date of payment. The rate of gold is readily available in internet, and so there is no difficulty in calculating the market value as on the date of payment. When the decree is for return of value of gold as on the date of payment, obviously, it shall not carry any interest. 37. It is a common complaint that, when family relationships are strained, in order to wreck vengeance, exorbitant monetary claims are made by wives against their husbands and in-laws. In order to satisfy their claims, they may even go for attachment of properties of in-laws who had no connection with the entrustment or misappropriation of their gold ornaments. So, while dealing with monetary disputes in strained family relationships, Family Courts should take utmost care and caution, and they should take earnest efforts to find out the truth involved in each case. Family Courts cannot shut their eyes towards social realities and they should see that, the fury and vengeance in strained relationship is not washing away the families. Each case is unique and it needs careful scrutiny and analysis in a judicious manner. Family Courts cannot shut their eyes towards social realities and they should see that, the fury and vengeance in strained relationship is not washing away the families. Each case is unique and it needs careful scrutiny and analysis in a judicious manner. Family Courts should be conscious of the fact that, they are doing a serious business of dealing with human life, and their wrong decision may end up in disastrous results. Apart from the exaggerated and twisted stories appearing in papers, the Family Courts should try to unearth the underlying truth, by holding unbiased and effective interactions with the parties and should assist them to reach an amicable settlement. 38. Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 reads thus: “9. Duty of Family Court to make efforts for settlement.-(1) In every suit or proceeding, endeavour shall be made by the Family Court in the first instance, where it is possible to do so consistent with the nature and circumstances of the case, to assist and persuade the parties in arriving at a settlement in respect of the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding and for this purpose a Family Court may, subject to any rules made by the High Court, follow such procedure as it may deem fit. (2) If, in any suit or proceeding, at any stage, it appears to the Family Court that there is a reasonable possibility of a settlement between the parties, the Family Court may adjourn the proceedings for such period as it thinks fit to enable attempts to be made to effect such a settlement. (3) The power conferred by sub-section (2) shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other power of the Family Court to adjourn the proceedings”. 39. The duty cast upon the Family Court is so sublime to assist and persuade the parties in arriving at a settlement in respect of the subject matter of the suit. Family Courts should see that in every case, trial is proceeded with only after taking all efforts of settlement. 40. Section 10(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 says that, nothing prevents a Family Court from laying down its own procedure with a view to arrive at a settlement in respect of the subject matter of the suit or proceedings or at the truth of the facts alleged by one party and denied by the other. 40. Section 10(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 says that, nothing prevents a Family Court from laying down its own procedure with a view to arrive at a settlement in respect of the subject matter of the suit or proceedings or at the truth of the facts alleged by one party and denied by the other. So, obviously, to arrive at the truth of the facts alleged, the Family Court can lay down its own procedure. Effective interactions with the parties is also one of the methods to arrive at the truth of the facts, and so, there is no bar for a Family Court in interacting with the parties to find out the truth, and to assist the parties for arriving at a settlement. 41. Once the Family Court is convinced of the genuineness of the claim made by the petitioner, it need not hesitate to grant the relief. In the case in hand, the Family Court found that, the respondent was entrusted with 521.600gms of gold ornaments of the appellant. But, the Family Court failed to grant a decree for return of the gold ornaments in specie, but granted a decree for the alternative relief alone, that too, by awarding the value of gold as on the date of its purchase, which was 14 years ago. So, definitely, it will workout injustice to the appellant. As we have already seen, even without asking for a specific relief for the same, for doing justice to the parties, the Family Court could have granted the market value as on the date of payment. 42. In the result, the appeal is allowed, modifying relief No.1 in the decree as follows : The 1st appellant is allowed to recover the gold ornaments scheduled in the petition weighing 521.600gms and in the alternative, to recover its market value as on the date of payment, from the respondent and his assets. The Mat. Appeal stands allowed, and no order is made as to costs.