“In Absence of Documentary Proof, Preponderance of Probabilities Must Guide Claims Over Stridhan: Kerala HC Orders Return of 59½ Sovereigns of Gold”
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha has directed the respondent to return 59½ sovereigns of gold ornaments or their market value as on the date of return to the petitioner. The Court partly allowed the appeal, reversing the Family Court's judgment to the extent it had dismissed the petitioner’s claim for return of her gold. However, the Bench declined relief regarding household articles, citing lack of evidence.
The appellant filed a matrimonial appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam, which had dismissed her original petition seeking return of gold ornaments and household articles. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 9 September 2010. A child was born on 22 December 2011 in the said wedlock. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was allegedly given 63 sovereigns of gold ornaments by her parents. Additionally, a gold chain weighing two sovereigns was given to the respondent, and relatives of the petitioner gifted another 6 sovereigns to her.
Initially, the gold ornaments were kept in the couple's bedroom. However, on 12 September 2010, the ornaments were allegedly shifted to the respondent’s parents' bedroom for safekeeping. The petitioner claimed that the respondent later demanded ₹5 lakhs from her father to pay the balance consideration for a flat. Due to non-fulfilment of this demand, marital discord began, eventually leading to the breakdown of the relationship.
The petitioner contended that 65½ sovereigns of gold (listed in Schedule A of the original petition) remained with the respondent, along with household items listed in Schedule B. In his response, the respondent denied possession of any such items and argued that the petitioner had taken her belongings when she left for her parental home during pregnancy.
During trial, the petitioner examined herself as PW1 and reiterated that her gold ornaments remained at the matrimonial home. Her father, PW2, corroborated the claim, stating that the 63 sovereigns of gold were purchased using his and his wife’s retirement benefits and acquired from Geeri Pai Jewellery, Ernakulam. He also confirmed that the respondent was gifted a gold chain. The petitioner produced Ext.A4 to show fixed deposits were liquidated to purchase the ornaments.
The respondent, in his counter statement, did not deny the gifting of 63 sovereigns of gold or the two-sovereign chain. However, he claimed ignorance about the present whereabouts of the ornaments and contended that the petitioner took them with her when she moved out. He did not enter the witness box during the trial to support his assertions.
The Family Court, based on its interpretation of the evidence and Ext.B1 (an email), concluded that the petitioner had taken the ornaments and denied her claims.
The High Court recorded: “There is no reason to disbelieve the version of the petitioner and her father that at the time of her marriage, she was given 63 sovereigns of gold ornaments and the respondent was given a gold chain weighing two sovereigns.”
Regarding the documentary support for the purchase, the Court noted: “Ext.A4 document fortifies the case of the petitioner that the amount deposited by her parents by way of fixed deposit... was utilized for purchasing the gold ornaments.”
On the practical challenges faced by women in proving ownership of gold, the Bench stated:
“The gold ornaments and cash given at the time of marriage to a bride are considered as women's 'Sreedhan'... Due to private and often informal nature of such transfers, it becomes merely impossible for women to produce documentary evidence proving ownership or misappropriations... The Courts rely on the preponderance of probability to ensure that legal system remains sensitive, fair and just.”
The Court emphasized the doctrine of preponderance of probability, observing:
“In civil cases, the party bearing the burden of proof needs to show that their version of events is more plausible than the opposite party.”
The Division Bench examined Ext.B1, a message allegedly sent by the petitioner to her sister-in-law, where she was said to have admitted taking back the gold. The Bench clarified: “A reading of Ext.B1 would show that it is not an admission made by the petitioner... but was a reference to the allegations levelled by her mother-in-law.”
On the failure of the respondent to testify, the Court observed:“Respondent has not entered into the witness box... Therefore an adverse inference can be drawn against him that the case canvassed by him is untrue.”
The Family Court’s reliance on Ext.B1 was found erroneous:“The finding of the learned Family Court that in Ext.B1 email, the petitioner has admitted that she has taken back her gold ornaments... is an incorrect finding.”
Further addressing the Family Court's interpretation of photographic evidence (Ext.A1), the Bench stated:“We cannot find favour with the finding of the Family Court that there are discrepancies in the total weight of the gold ornaments shown... Petitioner has categorically testified that she was given 63 sovereigns.”
However, on the issue of household articles listed in Schedule B, the Court found no evidentiary basis: “Neither in the original petition nor in the affidavit... she has not stated as to where those articles had been kept... There is no evidence to show that the said household articles were misappropriated by the respondent.”
The Division Bench concluded the judgment as follows: “In the result, Mat. Appeal allowed in part as follows:
Respondent shall return 59½ sovereigns of gold ornaments or its market value as on the date of return to the petitioner.
Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: M.S. Unnikrishnan, Sri. V.S. Sreejith, Sri. K. Sunil, Sri. Rinu S. Aswan, Smt. M. Ardra Krishnan, Smt. Aleena Maria Jose, Smt. Susan Jacob (S-3481)
For the Respondent: Sri. Santheep Ankarath, Sri. J. Ramkumar
Case Title: XXX v. YYY
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:32891
Case Number: Mat. Appeal No. 291 of 2020
Bench: Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha
[Read/Download order]
