JUDGMENT : Sathish Ninan, J. The original petition filed by the wife against the husband and mother-in-law, was decreed against the husband in part, by the Family Court. Challenging the same, the husband is in appeal. 2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 15.02.2004. The claim in the original petition is for an amount of Rs.3,04,000/-. The claim is under various heads as under:- 1 Amount given to the 1st respondent as 'Acharam' 50,000.00 2 Market value of 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the rate of Rs. 8000/- per sovereigns 1,60,000.00 3 Marriage Expenses 75,000.00 4 Value of presentation Articles (one Almirah) (still in the custody of the respondent's family house) 3000.00 5 Market value of 2 sovereigns presented to the child by the petitioner's relatives. 16,000.00 Total amount claimed 3,04,000.00 3. According to the petitioner-wife, at the time of marriage an amount of Rs.50,000/- was entrusted to the husband as “Aacharam”. So also, the petitioner was provided with 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments. That apart, as was required by the husband, an extent of 8 cents of property was settled by the petitioner's father in her name. The petitioner was also provided with an almirah worth Rs.3,000/-. An amount of Rs.75,000/- was spent towards marriage expenses. A child was born in the wedlock. The petitioner's relatives presented gold ornaments weighing 2 sovereigns to the child. The petitioner alleges that the gold and money were misappropriated by the respondents-husband and his mother. It is accordingly that the original petition was filed, for money. 4. The respondents in their objections denied the claim of payment of 'Aacharam'. It was also contended that the petitioner did not have any gold ornaments with her. The allegation that 8 cents of property was settled in the name of the petitioner by her father as was demanded by the husband, was also denied. The alleged misappropriation of money and gold was also denied. 5. The Family Court upheld the petitioner's claim for 'Aacharam', the value of 20 sovereigns of gold, and the Almirah. The claims with regard to marriage expenses and value of ornaments gifted to the child were negatived. So also, the decree was confined against the husband. There is no appeal by the petitioner-wife. 6. In spite of service of notice on the respondent-wife there is no appearance. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. The claims with regard to marriage expenses and value of ornaments gifted to the child were negatived. So also, the decree was confined against the husband. There is no appeal by the petitioner-wife. 6. In spite of service of notice on the respondent-wife there is no appearance. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant took us exhaustively through the entire evidence on record. The learned counsel would submit that there are contradictions in the evidence of the petitioner as PW1 and the evidence of PW3 who is the owner of the jewellery shop which is crucial and was overlooked by the Family Court. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, while the petitioner-wife claims that 20 sovereigns was purchased from the shop of PW3, according to PW3 only 14 sovereigns of gold was purchased from him. Moreover, there is no document evidencing such purchase. Though PW1 would claim that no photograph or video recording of the marriage was taken, PW3 would depose otherwise. Such photographs could have been produced by the petitioner to prove that she was adorned with any gold ornaments at the time of marriage. Learned counsel would also submit that, going by the details of the gold ornaments as deposed by PW1, the total quantity is only approximately 18 sovereigns. This would indicate that the very claim that she had 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments is false. He also argued that, though it is stated in the original petition that the respondents had sold the gold ornaments of the petitioner, as PW1 she would depose that only half the quantity was sold and the remaining half was pledged. Learned counsel would further submit that PW1 has admitted that after the parties started residing separately the petitioner constructed a house in her property. The source for the same remains undisclosed; it could only be by sale of the gold ornaments. Though “Acharam” is claimed to have been paid by availing a mortgage loan, no document evidencing the same has been produced. Hence it is only to be negatived. In the circumstances as above, the Family Court went wrong in granting a decree in favour of the petitioner, it is argued. 9. Though “Acharam” is claimed to have been paid by availing a mortgage loan, no document evidencing the same has been produced. Hence it is only to be negatived. In the circumstances as above, the Family Court went wrong in granting a decree in favour of the petitioner, it is argued. 9. Firstly we may point out that, the contention of the appellant that it is the case of the petitioner that 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments was purchased from the shop of PW3, is not correct. All that the petitioner has pleaded and deposed is only that she was provided with 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. PW3 the owner of the jewellery shop deposed that only 14 sovereigns was purchased from him. He also deposed that a further quantity of six sovereigns which was brought to him was weighed by him. 10. While it is true that there is contradiction between the evidence of PWs.1 and 3, if photographs were taken or video recording was done at the time of marriage, PW1 saying that it was not taken and PW3 making a statement otherwise, it was open for the respondent to produce the photographs if any taken, to prove that the petitioner was not wearing any gold ornaments at the time of marriage. Such a course was not resorted to. When the petitioner as PW1 has asserted that no photographs were taken and on the failure of the respondent to produce any photographs, the statement of PW3 is only to be ignored. 11. Ext.X1 is the marriage register maintained at the Jama-Ath of the respondents. At serial number 10 of the certificate, with regard to the details of the assets given at the time of marriage it is written, “20 However, the said writing is seen scored of. The present Secretary of the Jama-Ath was examined as PW2. He has deposed that, in the Jama-Ath there is no such practice of writing the details of assets and it is therefore that the said writing was scored of. He has deposed that such information was gathered from the then Secretary. That PW2 is the present Secretary of the respondent’s Jama-Ath, is not disputed. There is no reason why he should come forward to depose in favour of the petitioner. He has deposed that such information was gathered from the then Secretary. That PW2 is the present Secretary of the respondent’s Jama-Ath, is not disputed. There is no reason why he should come forward to depose in favour of the petitioner. At any rate no reason is suggested as to why he should depose in favour of the petitioner. 12. According to the appellant, admittedly PW1 constructed a house after separate residence from the first respondent-husband. It must have been constructed by utilising the gold ornaments of the petitioner, it is contended. Here it is to be borne in mind that, it is the definite case of the respondent both in the objections and in the proof affidavit that, the petitioner did not have any gold ornaments at all. That apart, it is the case of the petitioner that she was taken to her parental house by the respondents on 12.06.2005. Hence there would not be any occasion for the petitioner to carry her gold ornaments with her. Obviously, to circumvent the said situation, the respondent has attempted to put forward a case that the petitioner had left on her own on 05.06.2006 carrying all her articles and gold with her and at that time only the youngest sister of the first respondent, aged 14 years, was at home. However, this is contradictory to the suggestion made to PW1 that on 05.06.2005 the petitioner's brother and one Anas came home and the petitioner left with them. The relevant deposition reads thus :- Such a case was attempted to be set up to make it appear that whatever gold ornaments the petitioner had, were taken away by her when she went home. As noted above, such a case cannot be accepted. 13. With regard to the contention that the petitioner had constructed a house after she started living separately from the husband, the petitioner to pointed questions had answered that the cost of construction was less than Rs.5 lakhs and that she got Rs.50,000/- from the Panchayat and had availed a loan of Rs.1.5 lakhs. With regard to the balance consideration no question was put to her eliciting any answer. Taking advantage of the same, it is sought to be contended that the balance amount was raised by sale of the ornaments. With regard to the balance consideration no question was put to her eliciting any answer. Taking advantage of the same, it is sought to be contended that the balance amount was raised by sale of the ornaments. As noticed earlier such a contention does not lie in the mouth of the husband for the reasons already given above. 14. Now coming to the contention that there is lack of evidence to prove that Rs.50,000/- paid as 'Acharam' by creating a mortgage, the petitioner has specifically stated that the loan was availed from the Service Co- operative Bank, Kizhuvilam. While it is true that no documents to evidence the same was produced, the payment of such amount as 'Acharam' is noted in Ext.X1 mentioned. Hence the said contention is of no avail. 15. Coming to the contention that the petitioner, as PW1, could give the specifics with regard to only 18.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments and not the entire 20 sovereigns, we do not think that the same is of any consequence when no further question in the said regard was put to the witness. In fact, PW1 having narrated the details of the ornaments would lend credence to her claim. The fact that PW1 deposed that half the quantity of gold ornaments was sold by respondents while the remaining was pledged, which is not in tune with her plea that the gold ornaments were sold, we are of the opinion that it is only to be understood that it is the case that the gold was misappropriated by the respondents. 16. The Family Court which had the opportunity to watch the demeanor of the witnesses found the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 to be reliable and acceptable. Sufficient material is not placed before us to dislodge the finding. 17. It is seen that the Family Court has granted interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The relief claimed in the original petition reads thus :- “(A) A decree allowing the petitioner to realise an amount of Rs. 3,04,000/- (Rs. Three lakhs and four thousand only) from the respondents and their assets.” Pertinently, there is no claim for interest. However, the Family Court has granted interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of petition. 3,04,000/- (Rs. Three lakhs and four thousand only) from the respondents and their assets.” Pertinently, there is no claim for interest. However, the Family Court has granted interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of petition. Considering the prevailing rate of interest in banking transactions, we are of the opinion that, even though there is no specific claim for interest, the petitioner could be granted a decree for realisation of money with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition which, in the facts and circumstances would be just and reasonable. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of the Family Court will stand modified in so far as it relates to the rate of interest, which will stand re-fixed at 6% per annum. In all other respects the impugned judgment will stand affirmed. No costs.