Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 920 (KER)

Jayan S/o Peethambaran v. Manju D/o Narayanan

2025-04-09

SATHISH NINAN, SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

body2025
JUDGMENT : Sathish Ninan, J. The original petition filed by the husband against the wife seeking return of gold ornaments and money, was dismissed by the Family Court. The husband is in appeal. 2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25.01.2009. The marital life fell in doldrums. The petitioner-husband alleges that he had entrusted the respondent-wife a Thali chain having 5 ¼ sovereigns and a gold navaratna ring worth Rs. 15,000/-. His mother had, at the time of engagement, gave one gold bangle having one sovereign of gold. His sister had given a gold bangle having one and a half sovereign, the mother had given gold Pathakkam having four grams and gold jimikki and stud having one sovereign. His mother's sister had given gold bangle having six grams. His chitta had given ring having 4 grams. The ornaments were given in lieu of love and affection towards the respondent-wife. The petitioner further claims that, immediately after the marriage he had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- in the name of the respondent with the State Bank of India, Cherpu branch, followed by a further deposit of Rs. 10,000/- for availing a locker facility with the Federal Bank, Cherpu branch in the name of the respondent. The deposits were also in consideration of love and affection and was to be returned as and when required. Matrimonial relationship having broken down, he claims return of the gold and money. 3. The respondent filed objections denying the allegations that the petitioner's mother had given 'jimikki' and 'pathakkam' as claimed. While she admitted that the mother had given a bangle, she pleaded ignorance of its weight. She further admitted that she was given gold ornaments by the mother's sister etc. as claimed by the petitioner. With regard to the thali chain, she contended that she wore the thali on a thin chain. She further contended that gold ornaments were got returned by the petitioner and his mother. 4. With regard to the deposit with the State Bank of India Cherpu branch it was contended that the deposit was of Rs. 35,000/- and not Rs. 25,000/- and that it was by her father. Further, with regard to the deposit of Rs. She further contended that gold ornaments were got returned by the petitioner and his mother. 4. With regard to the deposit with the State Bank of India Cherpu branch it was contended that the deposit was of Rs. 35,000/- and not Rs. 25,000/- and that it was by her father. Further, with regard to the deposit of Rs. 10,000/- for availing a locker facility, it was contended that it is a joint locker in the names of the petitioner and the respondent, and that the said locker facility is still in existence and that no amounts are payable with regard to the same. 5. The Family Court held that the claim of the petitioner-husband is in respect of gifts given to the wife during the time of marriage which is her 'sthridhana' property. It is her absolute property, and the petitioner is not entitled to recover the same. With regard to the deposit of Rs. 35,000/-, the court accepted the respondent's case that the deposit was by her father. With regard to Rs. 10,000/- deposited towards bank locker, it was found that since the locker facility is still in existence, petitioner is not entitled to claim amounts under the said head. Accordingly the original petition is dismissed. 6. We have heard Sri.K.Ramakumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-husband and Sri.Yeshwanth Shenoy, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife. 7. The points that arise for determination are:- (i) Does the finding of the Family Court that the petitioner-husband is not entitled to recover the gold ornaments given to the respondent-wife in connection with the marriage, sustainable? (ii) Was the Family Court right in having declined the claim for the Bank deposits? 8. With regard to the petitioner's claim for gold ornaments, the relevant pleading is at paragraph 4 of the original petition. The same reads thus:- “4. The petitioner had also entrusted the respondent the thali chain having 5 ¼ sovereigns at the time of marriage. The petitioner had given the respondent a gold Navaratna ring worth Rs.15,000/-. 8. With regard to the petitioner's claim for gold ornaments, the relevant pleading is at paragraph 4 of the original petition. The same reads thus:- “4. The petitioner had also entrusted the respondent the thali chain having 5 ¼ sovereigns at the time of marriage. The petitioner had given the respondent a gold Navaratna ring worth Rs.15,000/-. The petitioner's mother had given one gold bangle having 1 sovereign at the time of engagement, his sister had given a gold bangle having 1 1/2 sovereigns, mother had given gold pathakkam having 4gms and gold jimikkki and stud having 1 sovereign, the petitioner's mother's sister (Leelamani) had given gold bangle having 6 gms and the petitioner's chitta (Rugmini) had given ring having 4 gms to the respondent. All these ornaments were given on the basis of love and affection towards the respondent as the dutiful and loyal wife of the petitioner and these were entrusted with a belief that the matrimonial relationship with the petitioner will continue without any discord or destruction. Since the matrimonial relationship with the respondent is irretrievably broken-down, the petitioner is entitled for realizing these gold ornaments or its value from the respondent. The gold ornaments are described in the schedule given below and is mentioned as petition scheduled property hereinafter. The entire ornaments except the thali chain were received as gift to the marriage of the petitioner and were entrusted by the petitioner with the respondent on the basis of love and affection.” Evidently, it is the petitioner's case that the ornaments were gifted to the respondent in consideration of the love and affection and in connection with the marriage. The ornaments having been gifted to the respondent-wife it becomes her absolute property. The donors do not retain title over the same. Though at paragraph 5 of the original petition it is pleaded that “The above said deposits and gold ornaments were entrusted with the respondent as a trustee on the basis of love and affection with a belief and understanding that it would be returned as and when it is required back.”, the plea of gift for love and affection, and a plea of entrustment as a trustee, are incongruous and cannot go together. When even according to the petitioner, the ornaments were given out of love and affection and as a gift, there is no force in the contention that it was an entrustment. 9. When even according to the petitioner, the ornaments were given out of love and affection and as a gift, there is no force in the contention that it was an entrustment. 9. The learned Senior Counsel would rely on the decision of this Court in Mary v. Cherchi and Ors. ( 1980 KLT 353 ) to contend that, the finding of the Family Court is that the ornaments were given as “Sthreedhanam” which partakes the character of “dowry”, which is prohibited under law. The court ought not to have given legal sanction to the same. The finding is opposed to law, it is argued. We are unable to find force in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel. In Mary v. Cherchi and Ors. (supra), the claim in the original petition was by the wife against her husband for Sthreedhanam amount. The court referred to the provisions of the Cochin Christian Succession Act and the Dowry Prohibition Act and held thus:- “..... So it is only a Streedhanam in the ordinary sense, i.e. a gift of money or property given to a female before, at or after marriage. It is unnecessary to dialate more into this aspect of the matter because whether the amount is treated as Streedhanam within the meaning of the Cochin Christian Succession Act or 'dowry' within the meaning of the Dowry Prohibition Act both these enactments clearly state that the amount received by her husband, his parent or guardian shall be kept by him in trust for her. In other words Streedhanam is always the property of the woman whoever is given custody of the same. Woman can always claim it back and enforce the return of it. In this view the decision of Khalid, J. in Thoma v. Sarakutty ( 1975 KLT 386 ) cannot be said to be correct. S.6 of that Act is not noticed there. A suit for recovering this amount will not be hit by the Dowry Prohibition Act.” In fact the said decision acknowledges the title of the wife over the gifts given to her in connection with the marriage, and that the husband is only a trustee for such property. 10. Even going by the petitioner's case, the gold ornaments in question had been gifted to the wife. 10. Even going by the petitioner's case, the gold ornaments in question had been gifted to the wife. Thus she becomes the absolute owner, and the claim for return of the ornaments on discord in the marital tie cannot be maintained. 11. That apart, it is to be noticed that, even going by the averments in the original petition, out of the gold ornaments claimed, except the Thali chain and the Navaratna ring all the other ornaments are stated to have been gifted not by the petitioner but by others, viz. petitioner's mother, petitioners mother's sister, and petitioner's chitta. They have not come forward seeking return of the same. The petitioner cannot claim back the same he not being the donor. Therefore, the claim cannot be sustained on that ground also. 12. With regard to the claim for the thali chain, the Family Court held that the marital tie has not been dissolved and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for return of the same. Challenging the dismissal of the original petition filed by the petitioner seeking dissolution of marriage, he had approached this Court in Mat. Appeal No.1061/2015. As per judgment dated 27.05.2020, the appeal was allowed, dissolving the marriage. Therefore, the reason given by the Family Court for rejection of the claim does not survive. With regard to the thali chain, the case of the petitioner is that at the time of marriage the respondent was adorned with a thali chain having 5 ¼ sovereigns. On a reading of the objections it is seen that there is no specific denial of such contention. All that is stated is that she used to wear the thali on a small chain. The relevant sentence in the Original Petition, which is in English, and in the Objections, which is in Malayalam, are extracted hereunder:- “The petitioner had also entrusted the respondent the thali chain having 5 ¼ sovereigns at the time of marriage.” While the respondent was examined as RW1 in the cross-examination she deposed thus :- Therefore, it is evident that the respondent does not deny that she was adorned with a thali chain of 5 ¼ sovereigns as claimed by the petitioner. Her claim that she was wearing the thali on a small chain as claimed by her has not been proved. Her claim that she was wearing the thali on a small chain as claimed by her has not been proved. A thali chain cannot be equated or considered at par with other gold ornaments gifted at the time of marriage. It symbolises the marital tie and the life long bond between them. Once the marital tie is dissolved, the wife is bound to return the same. There is no evidence that the thali is returned. Hence the petitioner is entitled for a decree for the same. 13. With regard to the claim for Rs. 25,000/-allegedly deposited with the State Bank of India, the respondent contended that the amount deposited was not Rs. 25,000/- but was Rs. 35,000/- and that the deposit was by the father. Ext.B3 is the Bank pass book evidencing the transaction. On the contrary, there is no evidence from the side of the petitioner to prove such deposit. As noticed, the petitioner is not even aware of the quantum. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner was rightly negatived by the Family Court. 14. With regard to the claim of Rs. 10,000/- deposited for operating a bank locker, admittedly the locker is still operational. The claim for the same was rightly declined by the Family Court. 15. Thus the decree and judgment of the Family Court is liable to be interfered with to the extent of granting the petitioner a decree for return of the thali chain. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part. The original petition will stand allowed directing the respondent to return the thali chain worth 5 ¼ sovereigns to the petitioner within one month from today, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled to realise its present market value from the respondent and her assets. The dismissal of the other reliefs sought in the original petition will stand affirmed.