Mat.Appeal Nos.797/2022, 824/2022, 430/2022 & 431/2022 - Rajan.R v. Bindu Chandra; Rajan R v. Rekhi Raj; Binduchandra v. Rajan R

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL`** ## **`&`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 MAT.APPEAL NO. 797 OF 2022 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OP(OTHERS) IN 1556/2018 OF FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ``` ``` RAJAN.R AGED 54 YEARS S/O. RAGHAVAN, RESIDING AT NEDIYIVILA PUETHEN VEEDU, MEENAD EAST, CHATHANNOOR P.O., MEENAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 572 ``` ``` BY ADV JAYAPRASAD M R ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:`** ``` BINDU CHANDRA AGED 46 YEARS D/O. RETNAMMA, RESIDING AT THAMBURU, THAZHAM, MEENAD EAST, CHATHANNOOR P.O., MEENAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 572 ``` ``` BY ADV MINI GANGADHARAN ``` ``` THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.11.2023, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.824/2022, 430/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 07.12.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MAT.APPEAL NO.797/2022, 824/2022, 430/2022 & 431/2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL ``` ## **`&`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 MAT.APPEAL NO. 824 OF 2022 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(OTHERS) 306/2019 OF FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM ``` ## **`APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:`** ``` RAJAN R AGED 54 YEARS S/O. RAGHAVAN, RESIDING AT NEDIYIVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MEENAD EAST, CHATHANNOOR P.O., MEENAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 572 ``` ``` BY ADV JAYAPRASAD M R ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:`** ``` REKHI RAJ AGED 24 YEARS D/O. RAJAN & BINDU CHANDRA, RESIDING AT THAMBURU, THAZHAM, MEENAD EAST, CHATHANNOOR P.O., MEENAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 572 ``` ``` BY ADV MINI GANGADHARAN ``` ``` THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.11.2023, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.797/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 07.12.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MAT.APPEAL NO.797/2022, 824/2022, 430/2022 & 431/2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL`** ## **`&`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 MAT.APPEAL NO. 430 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 306/2019 OF FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ``` ``` REKHI RAJ AGED 25 YEARS D/O RAJAN & BINDU CHANDRA, THAMBURU, THAZHAM, MEENADU EAST, CHATHANNOOR, MEENADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM – 691572 ``` ``` BY ADV MINI GANGADHARAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT`** ``` RAJAN. R AGED 53 YEARS S/O RAGHAVAN, NEDIYAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MEENADU EAST, CHATHANNOOR. P.O, MEENADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK – 691572 ``` ``` BY ADV JAYAPRASAD M R ``` ``` THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.11.2023, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.797/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 07.12.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MAT.APPEAL NO.797/2022, 824/2022, 430/2022 & 431/2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 MAT.APPEAL NO. 431 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(OTHERS)NO. 1556/2018 OF FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM ``` ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONER:`** ``` BINDUCHANDRA AGED 42 YEARS D/O RETNAMMA, THAMBURU, THAZHAM MEENADU EAST, CHATHANNOOR, MEENADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM, FROM K.V. BHAVAN KOONAYIL, PARAVUR P.O., PARAVUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM – 691572 ``` ``` BY ADV MINI GANGADHARAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:`** ``` RAJAN. R AGED 53 YEARS, S/O RAGHAVAN, NEDIYAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MEENADU EAST, CHATHANNOOR. P.O, MEENADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM – 691572 ``` ``` BY ADV JAYAPRASAD M R ``` ``` THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.11.2023, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.797/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 07.12.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 5 ``` ``` MAT.APPEAL NO.797/2022, 824/2022, 430/2022 & 431/2022 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** [Mat.Appeal Nos.797/2022, 824/2022, 430/2022, 431/2022] 1. This order shall dispose of four matters; Mat. Appeal No.797/2022 titled Rajan.R v. Bindu Chandra arising out the judgment dated 05.04.2022 rendered in O.P.No.1556/2018 preferred by the wife of return of the gold sovereigns and Cash; Mat. Appeal No.824/2022 against the decision rendered in O.P.(Others) No.306/2019 preferred by the daughter for claiming marriage expenses, granting the marriage expenses to the extent of Rs.3 lakhs against claim of higher amount; Mat. Appeal No.431/2022 by wife claiming enhancement of the amount as sought in O.P.(Others)No.1556/2018 and Mat. Appeal No.430/2022 on behalf of the daughter seeking enhancement of the compensation ordered in O.P.No.306/2019. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the aforementioned appeals in brief are that, marriage between Rajan and Bindu ``` MAT.APPEAL NO.797/2022, 824/2022, 430/2022 & 431/2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` Chandra aged 53 years and 46 years was solemnized on 11.09.1995 as per the Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. Out of the wedlock, two children were born now aged 22 years and 14 years respectively. At the time of marriage, wife-bindu Chandra was a B.Com student and could not complete her degree course owing to the death of her father whereas the husband as per the averments was conducting a business of his own and getting income of Rs.1 lakh per month. 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments along with a cash of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and Rs.15,000/(Rupees fifteen thousand only) was handed over to the family of the husband which had been utilized by the family for their own purposes of clearing debts incurred at the time of marriage. After one year of marriage, husband went abroad for employment and after working there for a year, returned to his native place and agreed to convey 11.25 cents of property in favour of the wife but did not do so. His behaviour created ``` MAT.APPEAL NO.797/2022, 824/2022, 430/2022 & 431/2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` mental cruelty and harassment. Wife had undergone Montessory Training for Kindergarten and worked for two years as a Nursery Teacher, thereafter, quit job owing to the repeated allegations by the husband and since 01.11.2018 started living separately. 3. Husband denied receipt of the 35 sovereigns of gold and utilization for the construction of the house much less receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) and Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) at the time of Nallavathil ceremony. Wife and Children preferred M.C.No.433/2018 claiming maintenance at the rate Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) each on the ground that the husband is earning sufficient income to meet the aforementioned maintenance. It was also alleged that a complaint to the Police, Chathannur had also been submitted on the ground that husband had not only deserted wife but children also. Husband denied the allegation and stated that ``` 8 ``` ## **`MAT.APPEAL NO.797/2022, 824/2022, 430/2022 & 431/2022`** wife was working in a beauty parlour under the name and style “NAS” and earning Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only). One of the child is already 23 years who passed B.Sc. (animation) course and working as Graphic Designer in a newspaper and earning sufficient income to bear the education expenses of other child. Allegation was levelled against the wife for leading adulteress life in as much as that the wife had filed OP(HMA)No.1288/2013 which has been allowed. Husband stated that he is an auto-driver by profession and does not have any means to pay the maintenance as alleged. Husband sought a decree of divorce in O.P.No.522/2020 on the ground of adultery. Trial Court vide common judgment and decree dated 05.04.2022 allowed O.P.No.522/2020 and dissolved the marriage between the parties and O.P.No.1556/2018 was allowed in part whereby husband had been directed to return 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value to the wife within a period of one month and Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen ``` MAT.APPEAL NO.797/2022, 824/2022, 430/2022 & 431/2022 ``` ``` 9 ``` thousand only) along with interest at the rate of 6% much less the cost of the petition. M.C.No.433/2018 was allowed in part whereby husband was directed to pay maintenance to the wife and one child who was studying in school. 4. Owing to the cruel attitude of the husband, wife had to quit the job. Appellant did not provide any expenses to maintain and sustain, thus sought a sum of Rs.12,50,000/(Rupees twelve lakhs fifty thousand only) and Rs.10,00,000/(Rupees ten lakhs) scheduled as B along with 50 sovereigns of gold for performance of the marriage of the daughter. Father contested the aforementioned petition and submitted that he was always maintaining his family in accordance with financial capacity but also made an allegation against his wife of illicit relationship. Daughter examined herself as PW1 and brought on record Exts.A1 to A4 and father examined himself as RW1 and brought on record Exts.B1 and B2. Noting that the father/husband is an autorikshaw driver by profession and do ``` MAT.APPEAL NO.797/2022, 824/2022, 430/2022 & 431/2022 ``` ``` 10 ``` not have the amount as claimed and as per the document B1 and B2 copies of children magazine for the year 2018, daughter was shown to be a designer, awarded a marriage compensation of Rs.3 lakhs to be paid within a period six months. It is in that background, Mat.A.430/2022 has been filed. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the husband avers that wife is not entitled to any maintenance or return of gold ornaments as ordered fo,r she had been in illicit relationship with with one Vinod, whose wife had filed a petition on leading adulteress life which has been allowed. Even the divorce sought by him has been granted and there is no appeal at the instance of the wife. Question of enhancement of the amount as sought in Mat. Appeal No.431/2022 does not arise. He is an auorikshaw driver by profession and cannot pay the amount as sought for. 6. Learned counsel representing the wife submitted ``` MAT.APPEAL NO.797/2022, 824/2022, 430/2022 & 431/2022 ``` ``` 11 ``` that husband has various assets. He worked abroad and purchased certain properties, thus a man of means but intentionally come out with a plea of running autorikshaw. Trial Court did not notice the fact that claim for return of the sovereigns and amount was more than the one granted. There is an abdication. Daughter claimed the enhancement of amount as sought for in the Original Petition bearing No.306/2019. There was no evidence before the Trial Court to form an opinion by awarding meager amount of Rs.3 lakhs to be paid in six months as compensation. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. 6. Both the husband and wife and one of the daughters are litigating. Marriage has already been dissolved in O.P. (HMA)No.522/2020 vide judgment dated 05.04.2022. Allegation in O.P.No.1556/2018 was of entrustment of 35 sovereigns of gold and amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one ``` MAT.APPEAL NO.797/2022, 824/2022, 430/2022 & 431/2022 ``` ``` 12 ``` lakh only) and Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only). Wife failed to place on record any concrete material of entrustment of the said gold sovereigns. Social status of the parties was ascertained from the house of the wife where she was residing. It was discerned that she had only 6.5 cents and 13 cents of the property was her family property. In other words, she obtained 6.5 cents out of the aforementioned 13 cents. No evidence has been placed on record to belie the assertion of the husband that he was an autorikshaw driver by profession at the time of marriage. This aspect was clarified rather by the wife when she was cross examined. It is settled law that parties may tell lie but in cross examination truth is spilled. Educational standard of the husband upto 10[th] standard was also admitted in the cross examination. Noticing all facts, in our view, the finding of the Family Court allowing O.P.No.1556/2018 partly to the extent of ordering return of 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ``` MAT.APPEAL NO.797/2022, 824/2022, 430/2022 & 431/2022 ``` ``` 13 ``` Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) along with interest at the rate of 6% and similarly Rs.3 lakhs for marriage expenses to the daughter to be paid in six months, is perfectly legal and justified and do not call for any different opinion than the one arrived at as no contrary evidence and material has been brought on record. All appeals are dismissed. Sd/- **AMIT RAWAL JUDGE** Sd/- **C.S. SUDHA JUDGE** nak