Kerala High Court: In a matrimonial appeal filed by the husband’s family challenging the Family Court’s order directing the return of 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the respondent, the Division Bench of Devan Ramachandran and M.B. Snehalatha*, JJ., made significant observations regarding the evidentiary challenges faced by women in such domestic contexts. The Court held that, due to the inherently domestic and informal nature of such transactions, a newly married woman would not be in a position to produce documents or independent witnesses to prove the entrustment of her gold ornaments to her in-laws.
In such circumstances, the Court noted, insisting on strict proof beyond reasonable doubt, as required in criminal law, would result in injustice. Therefore, the Court emphasised the need to adopt a pragmatic approach and to determine the issue of entrustment based on the principle of preponderance of probabilities, rather than the rigid standards of criminal jurisprudence.
Further, it concluded that the evidence on record clearly established that the respondent had entrusted 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments to her mother-in-law for safekeeping. The mother-in-law failed to offer any plausible or acceptable explanation as to what happened to the gold, which the respondent had brought to the matrimonial home.
Accordingly, the Court held that the respondent was entitled to recover the 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The appeal was allowed in part with the following directions:
a) The judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Tirur, against the respondent’s brother-in-law were set aside.
b) The mother-in-law was directed to return 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the respondent.
c) The mother-in-law was also ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Background
The marriage between the respondent and her husband was solemnized on 25-04-2012. At the time of the marriage, the husband was employed abroad. On her wedding day, the respondent was adorned with 81 sovereigns of gold ornaments, including 6 sovereigns that had been gifted by her husband, on the day of the marriage fixation.
After the marriage, the husband returned to his workplace abroad. The brother-in-law and mother-in-law (appellants) obtained the entire set of gold ornaments from the respondent under the pretext of safekeeping. While residing in the matrimonial home, the respondent was subjected to cruelty by the appellants, who demanded additional gold and cash, and tortured her.
On 16-01-2013, the husband tragically committed suicide at his workplace abroad. After her husband’s death, the respondent remained in the matrimonial home for 15 days. However, due to pressure from her in-laws, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home. Despite repeated demands, the appellants had not returned the 81 sovereigns of gold ornaments entrusted to them. As a result, the respondent filed the Original Petition seeking the return of the 81 sovereigns of gold ornaments, or their equivalent value.
After the trial, the Family Court allowed the petition in part, directing the appellants to return 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the respondent.
Assailing the said judgment and decree, the appellants preferred this appeal, contending that the Family Court had erred in appreciating the evidence in its correct perspective. They argued that the father of the respondent had no financial capacity to give 81 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Therefore, the Family Court had gone wrong in directing the appellants to return 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that, to substantiate the respondent’s claim that she was adorned with 81 sovereigns of gold ornaments on her wedding day, she had produced photographs and bills issued by a jewellery shop named ‘Malabar Gold and Diamonds, Tirur.’ The bills revealed that 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments were purchased by the respondent’s father on 24-04-2012. The marriage took place on 25-04-2012. Thus, bills supported the respondent’s version that her father had purchased 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments from Malabar Gold and Diamonds, Tirur.
The Court highlighted that the evidence on record clearly indicated that 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments had been purchased by the respondent’s father on the day prior to her marriage. The series photographs also showed that the respondent was wearing a substantial amount of gold ornaments on her wedding day.
According to the respondent, apart from the 53 sovereigns of gold purchased by her parents, her relatives had gifted her 21 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Additionally, she claimed to have worn 6 sovereigns of gold ornaments gifted to her by her husband, on the day of their engagement. However, although the respondent contended that 21 sovereigns had been gifted by her relatives, she failed to produce any reliable evidence to substantiate that claim, as rightly held by the Family Court.
The specific case of the respondent was that while residing at the matrimonial home, she had entrusted all her gold ornaments, except the thali chain to the appellants for safekeeping. The appellants, however, had misappropriated the ornaments for their own use and, despite her repeated demands, failed to return them.
The Court stressed that, in most Indian households, the entrustment of gold ornaments by a bride to her husband or in-laws typically occurred within a setting of familial trust, behind the four walls of the matrimonial home. A newly wedded woman would not ordinarily be in a position to demand receipts or require the presence of independent witnesses while handing over such jewellery to her husband or in-laws. Due to the domestic and informal nature of these transactions, she would not reasonably be expected to produce documentary evidence or third-party witnesses to prove entrustment.
The Bench observed that a woman, being a family member, cannot reasonably be expected to anticipate a future legal dispute and create documentary evidence in a household where she is expected to conform, trust, and remain silent, particularly during the early stages of her marriage.
In view of this, the Court observed that, if a dispute were to arise at a later stage, the woman would be placed in a practically difficult position when attempting to prove the entrustment of her own valuables. In such circumstances, applying the standard of strict proof beyond reasonable doubt, as is required in criminal law, would likely lead to injustice. Therefore, the Court held that a pragmatic approach should be adopted, and the issue of entrustment must be decided on the principle of preponderance of probabilities.
It was also evidenced that, just prior to her marriage, the respondent had enrolled in an Airport Management Course in Calicut, and after the marriage, she continued the course while residing in the matrimonial home and travelling to Calicut. Given these circumstances, the respondent’s version, that she had entrusted her entire gold ornaments, except the thali chain, to her in-laws was found to be more probable and acceptable than the appellants’ claim that she had retained all the gold ornaments with herself.
The Court concluded that the evidence on record clearly established that the respondent had entrusted her 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments to her mother-in-law for safekeeping. The mother-in-law failed to provide any plausible or acceptable explanation regarding what had happened to the 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments which the respondent had brought to the matrimonial home. Therefore, the Court held that the respondent was entitled to recover the 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments from her.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed in part.
[X v Y, Mat. Appeal No. 773 of 2020, decided on 02-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellants: P.VENUGOPAL, T.J. MARIA GORETTI, FERHA AZEEZ
For Respondent: T. KRISHNANUNNI (SR.), MEENA. A., VINOD RAVINDRANATH, M.R. MINI, ASHWIN SATHYANATH, K.C. KIRAN, M.DEVESH, ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH, THAREEQ ANVER
