Kiran Raj

The Kerala High Court has adjudicated on a matrimonial appeal concerning the alleged misappropriation of gold ornaments, directing the husband to return 20 sovereigns of gold or its present market value to the wife. The division bench, comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen, set aside the decree of the Family Court, Malappuram, and held that the husband failed to provide sufficient evidence to refute the wife's claim of entrustment.

The dispute originated from a matrimonial disagreement between the appellant and respondent, whose marriage took place on February 21, 2002. The appellant alleged that she was given 47 sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage—35 sovereigns purchased by her parents and 12 sovereigns gifted by relatives. She claimed that the respondent took possession of these ornaments and misappropriated them for his personal benefit.

The marital discord began in 2003, leading to an initial separation, after which there was an attempt at reconciliation in 2006 when they lived together in a house built by the respondent. However, tensions continued, and the appellant left the matrimonial home permanently in 2010, asserting that she was subjected to ill-treatment and that her gold ornaments had been unlawfully retained by the respondent.

The respondent denied the appellant’s claims, arguing that he had no involvement in misappropriating her gold ornaments. He maintained that any gold ornaments belonging to the appellant remained in her possession. He further contended that he had spent significant amounts of money on her education and medical expenses. Additionally, he alleged that some of the gold ornaments were misused by the appellant’s brother to finance the purchase of a truck.

Before the Family Court, Malappuram, the appellant submitted evidence, including photographs allegedly depicting her wearing 47 sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage, an estimate confirming the purchase of 35 sovereigns by her father, and bank records demonstrating that her ornaments had been pledged for loans. The Family Court partly allowed the appellant’s petition directing the respondent to return only 48.14 grams of gold. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the appellant filed an appeal seeking full restitution of her gold ornaments.

The High Court thoroughly examined the evidence presented by both parties, including oral testimonies and documentary proof. The appellant relied on:

• A series of wedding photographs (marked as Ext.A1), which purportedly showed her wearing gold ornaments at the time of marriage.

• An estimate (Ext.A2) issued in her father’s name, documenting the purchase of 35 sovereigns of gold.

• Bank records (Exts.X1 to X3) indicating multiple transactions where gold ornaments were pledged by the respondent, allegedly without her consent.

The court found that the respondent had pledged gold ornaments on several occasions. The respondent argued that the pledged ornaments belonged to his mother and himself, but he failed to substantiate this claim with concrete evidence. The court noted:

"On a perusal of Ext.A1 series photographs, it is seen that the wife had worn a considerable quantity of gold ornaments at the time of marriage, though the claim of 47 sovereigns may not be correct. The husband has not completely denied that the wife was having gold ornaments but stated that he was unaware of the exact quantity."

The court also took into account precedents, including:

• Rajesh P.P. & Another v. Deepthi P.R. [2021 (4) KHC 242], which held that "if it is the husband's case that the wife took back the ornaments when she left the matrimonial home, the burden is on him to prove the same."

• Pankajakshan Nair v. Shylaja & Another [2017 (1) KHC 620], reaffirming that the husband bears the burden of proving the lawful disposition of entrusted assets.

• Binitha v. Hareendran [2023 KHC 99], where it was reiterated that a husband failing to account for entrusted assets is liable to return them.

The respondent, apart from his own oral testimony, provided no corroborating evidence to establish that the appellant had taken the ornaments when leaving the matrimonial home. The court determined that his assertion lacked credibility.

Based on the examination of evidence, the court concluded that the appellant was in possession of 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. Considering the reasonable assumption that she retained some for personal use, the court held that the appellant was entitled to the return of 20 sovereigns.

The judgment stated:

"The decree and judgment of the Family Court are set aside, and a decree is passed directing the husband to return to the wife 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its present market value within one month from today."

Failure to comply within the stipulated period would entitle the appellant to recover the amount personally from the respondent’s assets, both movable and immovable. The court did not award costs to either party.

Case Title: Sreeja S. v. Nandakumar P.

Case Number: Mat. Appeal No. 298 of 2017

Bench: Justice Sathish Ninan, Justice Shoba Annama Eapen

[Read/Download order]