Hariprasad, J.
Aggrieved by the order of the Family court, Manjeri, in O.P.No.202/04 the petitioner therein has come up in appeal. The facts stated shortly are as follows : The appellant was married by the 1st respondent on 8.2.2004 as per the religious rites prevailing among Muslims. The appellant was taken to the matrimonial home on the same day of marriage. Thereafter, she and the 1st respondent started living as husband and wife. At the time of marriage, the appellant's father gave Rs.1 lakh and gold ornaments weighing 50 sovereigns. The respondents have appropriated the amount and gold ornaments. Further, they have started ill-treating the appellant after one week of marriage demanding more ornaments and money. She was subjected to physical harassment also. As the mental and physical harassment became unbearable, the appellant left the matrimonial home on 10.3.2004. On that day, the 1st respondent throttled the appellant and attempted to kill her. On 12.3.2004, the appellant was admitted in a hospital for treating the injuries sustained. She filed a case before the local police under sections 498 A, 406, 506(1) r/w 34 IPC. The appellant pleaded that the ornaments mentioned in the petition were retained by the respondents. Hence she claimed return of money and either the gold ornaments mentioned above or its worth. The respondents opposed the petition by contending that, to their knowledge, the appellant's father did not give gold ornaments weighing 50 sovereigns or Rs.1 lakh to her. It is their case that they have not received any money from the appellant's father. What ornaments were the appellant wearing or what was the weight of the ornaments belonging to the appellant was not known to the respondents. All the ornaments that she had at the time of marriage were taken by the appellant when she left the matrimonial home. The allegation of physical and mental harassment is also strongly denied by the respondent. According to the respondent, the appellant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs claimed in the petition.
2. The learned trial court Judge examined 2 witnesses on the side of the appellant and one witness on the side of the respondent. A1 to A5 series are the documents produced by the appellant.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below did not correctly appreciate the evidence. According to him, the court below discarded reliable evidence and denied the claim of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there are documents to show that the appellant's father (PW2) raised funds by sale of property. Ext.A1 is the document produced to show that on 21.1.2004, PW2 along with his siblings agreed to sell certain land at Kodaikanal to a prospective purchaser. However, it is an admitted case that the sale did not go through. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that those documents were rightly discarded by the court below, as all the parties named therein have not even executed the document. Further, there is no evidence to show that the persons who signed on Ext.A1 received part of the consideration as claimed by PW2. The admitted fact that sale did not take place as per Ext.A1 is also an indication to hold that Ext.A1 was not acted upon by the parties.
5. The court below found that there is no consistent version for the appellant regarding the payment of Rs.1 lakh to the 1st respondent. At one stage of the evidence, it is mentioned that the amount was paid on the date of marriage and at another stage, it is mentioned that the amount was paid on the date of reception, which admittedly was two days after the marriage. The court below noticed that neither PW1 nor PW2 has a definite case that it was entrusted to the 1st respondent. All these developments in the case were made at the time of evidence, which do not find a place in the pleadings. The allegation that the respondent appropriated 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments of the appellant is also not established. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that except one document in Ext.A4 series, all other documents are estimates. Ext.A5 estimate was of the year 2003. That shows that Ext.A5 series related to the gold ornaments purchased one year before the marriage. None of the documents would show that PW2 purchased the gold. In Ext.A4, it is simply mentioned that one Moideen from Malappuram had purchased the ornaments. No attempt was made at the time of trial to show that these invoices related to purchase of gold by PW2 for giving it to PW1 at the time of marriage. The court below rightly discarded this evidence.
6. To crown all these things, there is no photograph produced by the appellant taken on the date of marriage. Ext.A2 is a photograph admittedly taken 2-3 days after the marriage. It is true that the appellant could be seen wearing ornaments in Ext.A2. But it is not proved that she was compelled to leave behind the ornaments at the matrimonial home. There is no independent evidence in the case to find that she was wearing 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage and she was not allowed to take back those ornaments when she was forced out of the matrimonial home. Further, there is no independent evidence to show that the 1st respondent received Rs.1 lakh at the time of marriage. On going through the entire evidence, we are of the view that, the reasoning mentioned by the court below is also a probable one. It is a settled proposition that the Appellate court will be loath in interfering with the finding of the trial court, which has the advantage of seeing the demaneur of the witnesses, if it has taken a probable view. The view taken by the trial court is a probable one. We find no merit in this appeal.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
V.K.MOHANAN, Judge ami/ Sd/-
A.HARIPRASAD, Judge //True copy// P.A. to Judge