The Kerala High Court recently dismissed an appeal by a husband who challenged a Family Court’s order directing him to return a large quantity of gold ornaments, cash and household articles to his estranged wife, observing that it is common in matrimonial contexts for a bride to entrust the custody of her gold ornaments to her husband or his close relatives after marriage. The husband had married his wife in 1999, and the wife claimed that at the time of her marriage she was given 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments and fifty thousand rupees by her parents, along with household articles worth thirty thousand rupees when she went to the matrimonial home. She alleged that forty sovereigns of gold and the cash were taken by her husband and his mother and subsequently sold to purchase an auto rickshaw and to construct a house, following which she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home due to ill-treatment. She then filed petitions before the Family Court seeking the return of her money and gold and claiming past and future maintenance. The Family Court dismissed the husband’s claim and allowed the wife’s petitions, directing him to return the gold, cash and household articles belonging to the wife and awarding maintenance at a fixed monthly amount.
Challenging this order, the husband denied having been entrusted with any gold or money by his wife and contended that he had given her sixteen sovereigns of gold ornaments and five lakh rupees. He also disputed the liability to pay maintenance. In reviewing the evidence, the High Court examined the depositions and other material placed on record, including the consistent account given by the wife. The bench observed that the husband did not seriously dispute the quantity of gold ornaments worn by the wife at the time of marriage but only opposed the inclusion of certain items by alleging that some were not genuine gold or were purchased by him. The court found the wife’s version to be more probable in light of the husband’s limited earnings at that time, noting the common practice where a newly-wed bride seldom retains custody of all her ornaments and typically entrusts them to the husband or his family for safekeeping upon reaching the matrimonial home. It was further observed that given the financial disparity evident from the facts, it was improbable that the husband could have furnished the amount or quantity of gold he claimed to have given to his wife before marriage.
The High Court emphasised that the Family Court’s findings regarding entrustment, based on the credible and consistent testimony of the wife, were not to be interfered with lightly, and that the practice of entrusting gold ornaments to the husband after marriage is a matter of common experience. The bench thus upheld the Family Court’s conclusion that the wife had indeed entrusted the gold ornaments and monies to her husband, and that these were misappropriated. In consequence, the appellate court refused to upset the direction to return the gold ornaments, cash and household articles to the wife. The High Court, however, felt that there was no necessity to impose liability on the husband’s mother, observing that she was not directly implicated in the misappropriation, and exonerated her from any liability.
In dismissing the husband’s appeal, the High Court also upheld the maintenance award granted by the Family Court, thereby reinforcing the rights of the wife to recover her gold, money and other articles that had been entrusted to the husband at the time of marriage. The order reflects the judicial recognition that in matrimonial disputes involving claims for return of gold and other property, courts may consider customary practices and the probability of entrustment in assessing the credibility of competing accounts, and that the absence of strict documentary proof does not preclude the acceptance of a wife’s consistent testimony about entrustment of ornaments and property to her husband after marriage.
The proceedings were identified in the court records as Nishad and Another v. Mumthaz Beegum and connected cases, and the Division Bench, comprising Justices Sathish Ninan and P. Krishna Kumar, delivered the ruling declining the husband’s appeal and upholding the Family Court’s decree for return of the wife’s gold ornaments, money and household articles.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.