\

\ 1
'
IN THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR
Present: Sri.K.P. Bhagaval Singh, M.A., LLB., Judge.
Thursday, the 3is1 day of January 2013/ 11 th Magham, 1934.

O.P. 476/2006

Peti ti oners: 1. Mehanas, Aged 22 years,

D/o. Pulicharam veettil Muhammedunni,
Mullassery Desom & Village, Chavakk:ad Taluk
2. Minor Thamanna Thasnim, Aged 2½ years,
Residing with 1st petitioner
(Minor rep. mother and guardian 1st petitioner Mehanas)

By Advs. Sajeev.P & Roshan Babu P.U.

Respondents: 1. Abdul Rasheed, Aged 30 years,

S/o. Kolangattuparambil Bavu,
Ponjanam Desom, Kattoor Village,
Mukundapura..111 Tahik

2. Ramla, D/o. Kolangattu~arambil Bavu,

-do- -do-

RI exparte
R? B y- .Ad V. r-__:;-..l.-.i..l:
rt;_P.-rin ,, n . !>-1 ..,.9, ,J.: .'.1 sz.
...,. u ~ . Gi ~cri(J
, -,

This petition is coming before me on this day for consideration, the court
passed the following:
ORDER

This is a petition filed u/s.7 of the Family Courts Act.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:-
The first petitioner and the first respondent belong to Muslim
community. The first respondent is the hnsband of the first petitioner. The second
respondent is the sister of the first respondent. The nikkah between the first
.
petitioner and the first respondent was taken place on 9.8.2003 at M.P.'s
 2

Auditorium, Venkidangu as per the custom prevalent in the community. The

second petitioner, female child was born out of the wedlock. The first petitioner
had obtained 115 sovereigns of gold ornaments for her marriage. The respondents .
had told the first petitioner that it is not feasible to wear ail the gold orna~ents.
Hence the first petitioner had entrusted 102 sovereigns of gold ornaments with the
st
fir respondent as a trustee. · He had promised to return the same as and when
demanded by the first petitioner. But he had misappropriated all the said gold
o_rnaments without the consent of the first petitioner. The respondents used to
harnss th f t ·· .
a e rrs petit10ner both mentally and physically demanding more dowry.
The first respondent had abandoned the first petitioner at her parental home on
. 22.8.2003 demanding more money. Thereafter the first petitioner had obtained a
sum of Rs.2 lakhs from her family members and deposited the same as per the
direction of . the firsi respondent. The first respondent had compelled the first
petitioner to deposit the said amount i:1 the account of the first respondent. The
first petitioner was not amenable for the same and thereby he had assaulted her.
She was taken to her parental home by her family members. Thereafter the first
petitioner was compelled to transfer the said amount of Rs.2 lakhs to the-account
of the first respbndent. He had withdnwn the said amount on 5.3.2003. The first
respondent had harassed the first petitioner both mentally and physically. He had
even asked the first petitioner to abort the pregnancy. He is not maintaining the

petitioners. The petitioners have no source of income to maintain themselves.

_- -They are depending · upon the family members of the first petitioner. The
· :, :' ·r espo~d~~t is in Dubai and drawing monthly salary of Rs.40,000/-. The first
i . . ; . '
. petitioner nee d s R s. 4000/- and thP.,., 2nd petitioner Rs.2000 per mensem for their

ft; " •. "~:· ,} ; · ·e

. ~ijmte,r:iapG . '.
Hence the petitioners filed ·the present petition for the return of 102
{ -. .~ . -,~.. ,-- ··:,..~/ }/ ·-i f ld ornaments or its equivalent value of Rs.22,44,000/- and cash .of
;;t --~s,oye(~~a:w' o go . . . ..
\:·, .;.,,,·. ··--<· .:·. ~~,., . t -. h
._ ,-:·: .·····2 00 000/- wit
meres
t and fior past maintenance for the first petit10ner from
.
·-; Rs. ' ' h f Rs 4o00/- and for the second petitioner from the
., 10 2003 at t e rate o ·
the d ate 2 · ·
 3
date 1.5.2004
at the rate of Rs, 2000/- per mensem and for .futu.i e.·maintenance.
Hence the petition. . ,, ~--_., . . Ji
..
3· Th e flfS t respondent remained exparte:V·\ i ' 1
,. . · .
.
.

4· nd
The 2 respondent entered appeanJic. Bu~ the petidone/i•filed
a statement to the effe t th . h . -_· .-; -- . . .
c at t ey are not seeking any :. rel~_ ~f :~gamst
_,_ r •· -... ·· .
the second
respondent. · . . ·::;;.,_:;.. _

5• The first petitioner filed proof ~ffidavit.

6. Toe·points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether the first petitioner is entitled for the return of 102
sovereigns of gold ornaments or its equivalent value?

11. Whether the first petitioner 1s entitled for the refund of

Rs.2,00,000/- with interest?

111. Whether the petitioners are entitled for past and future
maintenance amounts, if so, what is the quantum?

1v. Reliefs and costs?

7. Point No.i: It is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner
had entrusted 102 sovereigns of gold ornaments with the first respondent on the
assurance that he will return the same as _and . when ~emanded by the first
petitioneL But the first respondent failed to return the same despite repeated
demands for the same by the first petitioner.

8. The proof affidavit will prove the case of the petitioners. No

contra evidence is forthcoming in this case. If so, I am-of the view that the first
petitioner is entitled for the return of gold ornaments · of 102 sovereigns or its
equivalent value to the tune of Rs.20,40,000/- (102 x 20,000). · This point is .

answered accordingly.
9. Point No.ii: It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent,
 4

had misappropriated a sum of Rs.2 lakhs of the first petitioner. Hence the
petitioners wants the refund of the said amount. The case _o f the petitioners is
proved by the proof affidavit. If so, the first petitioner is entitled for the refund of ·
Rs.2 lakhs. This point is answered accordingly.

IO. Point No.iii: It is the case of the petitioners that ·the petitioners
are entitled for past and future maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.4000/- to the
first petitfoner and Rs.2000/- to the 2nd petitioner per mensem. The first
respondent is employed in Dubai and drawing monthly salary of Rs.40,000/-.

11. It is true that the first respondent has not adduced or produced any
evidence in this case. Even then the court is empowered to adjudicate the matter
on merits. To put it differently the court has got ample power to quantify the
maintenance amount after considering the status of the parties and the source of
incorne of the respondent. After considering all these aspects I am of the view
that the first petitioner is entiiled -fo:· past maintenance amount at the rate of
Rs.2000/- per mensem for 36 months and the 2nd petitioner at the rate Rs.1000/-
for 23 months. In other words the first petitioner is entitled to get a sum of
Rs.72,000/- and the second petitioner Rs.23,000/- as past maintenance amount.

12. The petitioners have claimed future maintenance also. I am of

the view that the ·first petitioner is entitled to get future maintenance at the rate of
Rs.2000/- per mensem and the 2nd petitioner at the rate of Rs.1000/- per mensem
fro r:1 this date. This point is answered accordingly.

13. Point No.iv: In view of my findings on the foregoing points the

petition is liable to be allowed. But I am not inclined to award any costs in the

·· petition while considering the relationship of the parties.

In the result, the petirion is allowed as follows:-

1. The first responden~ is directed to return the gold ornaments

 5
/ weighing 102· sovereigns
· ·
or its equivalent value to the tune of Rs.20,40, 000/-
within two month s f rom this
· date,
· ·
faiiing which the sum of Rs.20,4 O,000/- w1·11

carry intere st at the rate of 6% per annum from this date till realisation.

ii. The first respondent is. directed to refund Rs.2,00,000/- within two
months from this date, failing which the said amount will carry interest at the rate

of 6% per annum from this date till realisation.

iii. The first respondent is directed to pay past maintenance at the rate
of Rs.2000/- per mensem to the first petitioner for 36 months and Rs.1000/- per
. .

mensem · to the 2 nd petitioner for ·23 months within two months from this date,

failing which the amounts will carry interest at the_ rate of 6% per annum from the

date of the order till realisation:

iv. The first respondent is _directed to pay future maintenance at the

rate ct Rs.2000/- per mensem to the fi~st petitioner and Rs.1000/- per mensem to
the second petitioner from this date.

v. The petitioners are not entitled to get any costs in this case.

(Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

st
pronounced by me in open court on this the 31 day of January, 2013).

_.>'. ,.
- ~
·91

,1,;
.sdl-
(,t; I ,,
K.P. BHAGAVAL SINGH
• ,; & ' :

.
·..

·, '· Judge, Family Court, Thrissur

--. _/::-r-'1ue.. UJp:d/ 0ide1

.,.. ; -~

Compared by!, It AMILVC'ota·r. 1u1<1.,svk

I Datt of..., .l1N11t11Jt1tf31-l-1 .
· / '•r> rtady • ,- o-13