A.Hariprasad, J.
Respondents 1 and 2 in O.P.No.670 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor are the appellants before us. They are aggrieved by the decree passed by the court below for return of money and gold ornaments to the original petitioner/respondent herein.
2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of the above appeal are as follows:
1st appellant is the husband of the respondent. 2nd appellant is the father of the 1st appellant. On 24.11.2005, the 1st appellant married the respondent according to the rites prevailing in Christian community. At the time of marriage, respondent's father gave `40,000/- and gold ornaments weighting 15 sovereigns as patrimony. After the betrothal, the said amount was entrusted to the 2nd appellant as trustee and on the date of marriage, she was wearing the ornaments weighting 15 sovereigns. Immediately after the marriage, the appellants took away the ornaments from the respondent and they kept the same. Money received by the 2nd appellant was also appropriated by the appellants for their purpose. It is the case of the respondent that during the subsistence of the matrimonial relationship, the appellants physically and mentally meted out cruelty to the respondent. Further, it is alleged by the respondent that she was compelled to undergo abortion at the instance of the 1st appellant and his mother. When the harassment became unbearable, she filed a petition before the Police. It is evident from the averments in the petition that the relationship between the husband and wife ran into a rough weather. Therefore, the respondent approached the Family Court for return of money received by the appellants at the time of marriage and also for return of gold ornaments. Appellants resisted the petition before the Family Court by filing a counter statement. According to them, only `20,000/- was paid by the father of the respondent at the time of marriage. Further, they contended that gold ornaments weighting five sovereigns only were given to the respondent at the time of marriage. Rest of the ornaments worn by the respondent at the time of marriage were rold gold ornaments. Physical and mental cruelty attributed to the appellants are also denied by them. According to the contention of the appellants, they are not liable to pay any amount as claimed in the petition.
3. Court below examined PWs 1 and 2 on the side of the respondent and RWs 1 to 4 on the side of the appellants. Exts.A1 to A6 are the documents produced and proved by the respondent.
4. We have carefully perused the pleadings, oral evidence and the documents relied on by the parties. PW1 is the respondent herself. She testified that at the time of marriage, her father had given `40,000/- and gold ornaments weighting 15 sovereigns to the appellants. PW2 is the brother of PW1, who contend that for the purpose of meeting the marriage expenses, he had availed a bank loan as is evident from Ext.A6. Ext.A6 would show that two days prior to the date of marriage PW2 had availed a loan of `1,00,000/- from a Service Co-operative Bank. Even though, these two witnesses were subjected to cross-examination, we do not find any reason to hold that their testimony have been effectively impeached or discredited.
5. On the side of the appellants, 1st appellant testified as RW1.
When cross-examined, 1st appellant deposed that he was not aware as to whether PW2 availed any loan for meeting the marriage expenses. Therefore, the assertion of PW2 remains unchallenged by RW1. It is come out in evidence that the respondent filed a petition before the Sub Inspector of Police, Velloor, which is marked as Ext.A3. Ext.A4 is the copy of first information report. It was seen filed on 25.03.2007. In Ext.A3 also, she has narrated the incidents in tune with the averments in the original petition. There is no incongruity between the recitals in Ext.A3 and that in the original petition.RW2 is the uncle of the 1st appellant. His testimony will only show that there were quarrels between the husband and wife. He has no idea as to whether any cash was paid by the father of the respondent to the appellants at the time of marriage. Therefore, the court below rightly discarded his evidence as it is not supporting the case of the appellants. RWs 3 and 4 are two witnesses cited to prove the fact that they saw the respondent's father taking gold ornaments from the possession of the appellants. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that names of RWs 3 and 4 have not even been mentioned in the counter affidavit as witnesses to any transaction as alleged by them. It is true they are figuring in the case only at the time of evidence. Court below is justified in discarding the testimony of RWs 3 and 4 as unbelievable.
6. On evaluation of the entire evidence, we are of the view that the assertion made by the respondent that her father gave `40,000/- to the appellants and she was given 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage remains credible and acceptable. Court below correctly analysed the evidence and arrived at the conclusion that the petition is worthy to be allowed. We find that the appeal is devoid of any merit.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks