Harun-Al-Rashid, J.

1. Mat. Appeal is filed by the respondents in O.P. No. 657/2010. The connected R.P. (F.C.) No. 152/2011 is filed by the sole respondent in M.C. No. 712/2010 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram. O.P. No. 657/2010 was filed by the wife against the husband and father-in-law for realisation of Rs. 3 lakhs and 70 sovereigns of gold ornaments or their market price with interest and cost. M.C. is filed by the wife for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- to her and Rs. 5,000/- to the minor son. The Family Court by a common order allowed the Original Petition directing the respondents 1 and 2 therein to return 70 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value and currency of Rs. 3 lakhs with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Petition. The M.C. also was Mat. Appeal No. 530/2011 & R.P. (F.C.) No. 152/2011 allowed in part directing the respondent to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs. 1000/- to the 2nd petitioner as monthly maintenance. The appeal and revision petition are filed challenging the common order. The parties are hereinafter referred to as referred in the Original Petition.

2. Both sides adduced oral and documentary evidence. PW1 to PW3 were examined on the side of the petitioner and RW1 to RW3 on the side of the respondents. Exts. A1 to A4 (a) were marked on the side of the petitioner and B1 to B5 were marked on the side of the respondents.

3. The petitioner and 1st respondent are husband and wife. A male child was born in the wedlock. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 30.4.2008. According to the petitioner, 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments and currency of Rs. 3 lakhs were given by her father at the time of marriage. The gold and money were entrusted with the respondents. The money and ornaments were fixed after negotiations before marriage. It is stated in the Original Petition that 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments and currency of Rs. 4 lakhs were fixed for the marriage. But her father could arrange only 75 sovereigns and currency of Rs. 3 lakhs by sale of the house and landed property. According to the petitioner, 70 sovereigns of gold, out of the 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments, were given to her at the time of marriage and Rs. 3 lakhs were misappropriated by the respondents. It is also alleged that out of her 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments, 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments were utilised by the husbands family for the marriage of the husbands sister, who was also examined in this case as RW3. The balance 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments were taken by the husband.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is admitted that the 1st respondent had given mahar of 8 sovereigns of gold chain. It is contented that the respondents had never demanded any ornaments or money and no money was entrusted with the 2nd respondent by her family members. The respondents denied the allegation that the gold ornaments and money were misappropriated by them. According to the respondents, 62 sovereigns of gold was given to the 1st respondents sister. It is alleged that they had purchased 21.34 sovereigns of gold ornaments prior to the Nikkah of RW3 and 351.85 gms were purchased on 17.5.2008.

5. The trial court rightly observed that the burden is on the petitioner to prove her claims. The petitioner produced Ext. A4 series marriage photographs and Ext. A3 estimates. It is observed by the court that for the arranged marriage, ornaments and currency were negotiated and fixed as 75 sovereigns and Rs. 4 lakhs and that she was taken to the matrimonial home on the date of marriage wearing 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It is also found that Rs. 3 lakhs was given on the date of marriage to the respondent.

6. The petitioner tendered evidence as PW1 and her father as PW2. Both of them spoken about the quantum of gold ornaments given at the time of marriage and payment of currency of Rs. 3 lakhs. The 1st respondent husband was examined as RW1. He deposed that he has no idea about the quantity of gold ornaments given to his wife at the time of marriage. It is deposed that she was wearing about 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments. RW2, the father, deposed before the court that there is a custom prevailing in their District among Muslims to give 10 times the weight of the mahar as the gold ornaments to the bride. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and the depositions of RW1 and RW2 is almost certain that the family of the petitioner had given 75 sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage. Admittedly, on the date of marriage of the petitioner, Nikkah of the younger sister of the husband had also taken place. RW3, the sister, was taken to the house of her husband only one month thereafter. Case of the respondents is that RW3 was having more than 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments. RW3 was given mahar of 7 sovereigns. Admittedly, the 1st respondent had given mahar of 8 sovereigns of gold chain. The learned Judge, on the basis of the quantity of mahar given to the petitioner probabilises the version of the petitioner regarding the entrustment of 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments.

7. The 2nd respondent father was employed in gulf for more than 30 years. His son, who is the 1st respondent, continues to be employed abroad. The evidence further show that for the marriage of the petitioner, her parents had sold their house and landed property for Rs. 18 lakhs. It is also come out in evidence that PW2 constructed a new house by availing a house loan of more than Rs. 8 lakhs as evidenced by Ext. A2 loan passbook. The court found that Ext. B1 album also goes a long way to probabilise the version of the petitioner regarding the case of gold ornaments.

8. The court below believed the testimonies of petitioner and her father. The petitioner pleaded that her 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments were utilised in connection with the marriage of RW3. Admittedly, the nikkah of RW3 had taken place on the date of marriage of the petitioner with the 1st respondent. RW3 was taken to her matrimonial home after one month of the date of Nikkah. On the totality of facts and circumstances and the evidence placed before the court, the court below arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners ornaments were also utilised for the purchase of ornaments for the marriage of RW3. RW3, the sister of the 1st respondent certified before the court that before Nikkah some ornaments were purchased and all the available ornaments were exchanged and new ornaments were purchased for her marriage held one month thereafter. The court observed that her version fits in perfectly with the case advanced by the petitioner and evidence tendered by the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the court below accepted the version of misappropriation of gold ornaments and handing over the currency at her matrimonial home.

9. Admittedly, the 1st respondent husband is working abroad. The court concluded that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the 1st respondent can spare reasonably moderate amounts to the petitioner and her minor child. The court fixed Rs. 4,000/- to the petitioner and Rs. 1,000/- to the second petitioner.

10. We have examined the evidence on record. We have gone through the depositions of all the witnesses. We agree with the findings recorded by the court below. We find that no sustainable grounds are made out by the appellants and the petitioner in the Mat. Appeal and Revision Petition to interfere with the findings recorded by the court below. We find no merit in the Mat. Appeal and Revision Petition. Accordingly, both cases are dismissed.