Kerala High Court

Anil Kumar vs Lavanya P.V on 18 June, 2025

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

MAT.A NO. 288 OF 2021                   1            2025:KER:44044
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                    &
             THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
  WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1947
                        MAT.APPEAL NO. 288 OF 2021
        AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.12.2020 IN OP NO.1048 OF
2013 OF FAMILY COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:

              ANIL KUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS
              S/O. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, TC NO.27/1806(1),
              GIRIJA BHAVAN, VANCHIYOOR P.O.,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035, REPRESENTED BY HIS
              POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND MOTHER B.GIRIJADEVI,
              AGED 67 YEARS, W/O. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, TC
              NO.27/1806(10 , GIRIJA BHAVAN, VANCHIYOOR P.O.,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035
              BY ADVS.
              SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN
              SMT.MEENU THAMPI
              SHRI.AMAL STANLY
              SHRI.SHYAM KUMAR M.P
              SMT.ANISA ANDREWS
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

               LAVANYA P.V
               D/O. VASANTHA KUMARI, TC NO.37/777, KARTHIKA,
               BP STREET, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
              SRI.P.M.SANEER


       THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
30.5.2025, THE COURT ON 18.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MAT.A NO. 288 OF 2021                 2                2025:KER:44044



            DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & M.B.SNEHALATHA, JJ.
                  -------------------------------------------
                      Mat.Appeal No.288 of 2021
                   -------------------------------------------
                    Dated this the 18th June, 2025

                                JUDGMENT

M.B.Snehalatha, J

The appellant herein who is the 1st respondent assails the

judgment and decree of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram

directing him to return 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the

respondent herein.

2. Parties shall be referred to by their rank in the Original

Petition.

3. Petitioner/wife filed the Original Petition for return of

gold ornaments and cash of ₹5 lakhs, contending that at the time

of her marriage with the 1st respondent, which was solemnised on

4.7.2010, she was given 70 sovereigns of gold ornaments by her

parents. Apart from that, 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments were

gifted to the 1st respondent, his mother and sister. 2 nd respondent

is the father of 1st respondent. Three days after the marriage, she

entrusted her entire gold ornaments with the respondents for safe

custody as insisted by them. 1st respondent/husband subjected MAT.A NO. 288 OF 2021 3 2025:KER:44044 the petitioner to cruelty and physically and mentally harassed her.

He tortured her demanding to transfer the ownership of her

parental house in his name. He also demanded ₹5 lakhs from her

parents for starting a new business. Accordingly, the petitioner's

father gave an amount of ₹5 lakhs to him. The gold ornaments of

the child were also entrusted to the 1st respondent as insisted by

him. 1st respondent was maintaining an illicit relationship with a

lady named Deepa Chandran. 1st respondent with the knowledge

of the 2nd respondent pledged a few gold ornaments of the

petitioner in the name of said Deepa Chandran and obtained an

amount of ₹4,02,700/- for their personal use. When the petitioner

came to know about the same, she contacted the said Deepa

Chandran and with the monetary assistance of her parents, she

redeemed the said gold ornaments. On 20.9.2012, when the

petitioner questioned the 1st respondent regarding his illicit

relationship with Deepa Chandran, he brutally manhandled the

petitioner and ousted her from the house. Respondents are in

illegal custody of 45 sovereigns of the gold ornaments of the

petitioner and cash of ₹5 lakhs and therefore they are liable to

return 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹5 lakhs to the

petitioner.

MAT.A NO. 288 OF 2021 4 2025:KER:44044

4. 1st respondent filed objection denying the case of the

petitioner that she was given 70 sovereigns of gold ornaments at

the time of her marriage. It was further contended that the

ornaments worn by the petitioner on her wedding day were not

gold; that on the 3rd day of the marriage, petitioner had returned

those imitation ornaments to her beautician. It was further

contended that petitioner pledged her gold ornaments for

conducting tour packages along with her male friends and he has

no liability to return any gold. He denied the case of the petitioner

that he received an amount of ₹5 lakhs from her parents.

5. The 2nd respondent contended that he has no

knowledge regarding the transaction between the 1st respondent

and Deepa Chandran. Petitioner and the 1st respondent resided in

the matrimonial home only for a few days and thereafter they

shifted their residence to a rented house. It was also contended

that the parents of the petitioner has no financial capacity to give

70 sovereigns of gold and ₹5 lakhs as cash, as contended by the

petitioner.

6. After evaluating the evidence, both oral and

documentary, the learned Family Court decreed the Original

Petition in part directing the 1st respondent to return 45 sovereigns MAT.A NO. 288 OF 2021 5 2025:KER:44044 of gold ornaments. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree,

the 1st respondent in O.P/husband has preferred this appeal

contending that the Family Court has not appreciated the evidence

in its correct perspective.

7. Heard both sides.

8. The point for consideration is whether the

judgment of the Family Court warrants any interference by this

Court.

9. Admittedly, the marriage between the petitioner

and the 1st respondent was solemnised on 4.7.2010. The case of

the petitioner is that at the time of her marriage, she was given 70

sovereigns of gold ornaments. Apart from that, a gold chain

weighing 3 sovereigns was given to the 1st respondent; a gold

bangle weighing 1 sovereign was given to his mother and a gold

ring weighing 1 sovereign was given to the sister of the 1 st

respondent. Her case is that, subsequent to the marriage, while

she was residing at the matrimonial home, she entrusted her gold

ornaments to the respondents for safe custody, as the respondents

insisted her to handover the gold ornaments to them and promised

to keep it in the locker of the 2 nd respondent. Her further case is

that when she had gone to her parental home in the 7 th month of MAT.A NO. 288 OF 2021 6 2025:KER:44044 her pregnancy, 1st respondent gave 30 sovereigns of gold

ornaments to her and the remaining 40 sovereigns are with the

respondents. She also claimed return of 5 sovereigns of gold

ornaments given to the 1st respondent, his mother and sister.

10. To substantiate the petitioner's case that at the

time of marriage, she had worn 70 sovereigns of gold ornaments,

she has produced Ext.A2 photograph. 1st respondent has not

disputed the genuineness of Ext.A2 photograph. Though he would

contend that the ornaments worn by the petitioner on her wedding

day were not gold, he failed to establish the same by adducing any

acceptable evidence as rightly held by the learned Family Court. It

is to be borne in mind that in the counter statement of the 1 st

respondent, he raised a contention that the petitioner utilised her

gold ornaments for conducting tour packages with her male

friends. Thus, it is an admitted fact that petitioner had brought

gold ornaments to the matrimonial home as contended by her.

Therefore, the case of the 1st respondent that the petitioner had no

gold ornaments and the ornaments worn by her on the wedding

day were imitation ornaments is untenable.

11. The specific case of the petitioner is that within 2-

3 days of the marriage, she entrusted her entire gold ornaments MAT.A NO. 288 OF 2021 7 2025:KER:44044 with the respondents. According to her, her husband who had an

illicit relationship with a lady named Deepa Chandran pledged the

gold ornaments in the name of said Deepa Chandran and when she

happened to see a notice issued from 'Muthoot Fincorp Ltd,' qua

pledging of gold in the shirt pocket of her husband, she contacted

the said Deepa Chandran and thereafter in order to save her gold,

she redeemed the said gold loan by remitting an amount of

₹4,02,700/- with the monetary assistance given from her family.

Petitioner has produced Exts.A3 to A6 and A9 to A14 documents to

substantiate the said contention. It is to be borne in mind that in

spite of the specific version of the petitioner that 1 st respondent in

connivance with one lady named Deepa Chandran pledged the gold

ornaments of the petitioner at Muthoot Fincorp, Vellayambalam

Branch, 1st respondent did not choose to enter into the witness box

to speak his case on oath and to offer himself for cross

examination. In the said circumstances, we find no reason to

disbelieve the version of the petitioner that 1 st respondent pledged

few of her gold ornaments with the assistance of one lady named

Deepa Chandran and on coming to know about the same, the

petitioner redeemed the said gold from Muthoot Fincorp,

Vellayambalam Branch. Ext.A7 and A8 documents would also MAT.A NO. 288 OF 2021 8 2025:KER:44044 fortify the case of the petitioner that 1st respondent had also

pledged the gold ornaments of the petitioner.

12. The case of the petitioner is that when she had

gone to her parental home in the 7 th month of her pregnancy,

respondents gave 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments to her and the

remaining 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments were retained by the

1st respondent and he did not return it to her. 1 st respondent has

not entered into the witness box to deny the case of the petitioner

that she entrusted the gold ornaments with him and it was not

returned to her.

13. The learned counsel for the appellant contended

that except the oral interested version of the petitioner, there is no

independent evidence to prove the entrustment of gold ornaments

with the 1st respondent.

14. It is only natural and probable that during the

subsistence of the marriage, the valuables of the newly wedded

bride will be entrusted with the husband or in laws for safekeeping.

In a traditional Indian marriage, the transfer of gold and other

valuables usually occurs in the presence of family members and

relatives and not through any formal document. Given the setting

of mutual trust and shared domestic life, no formal documentation MAT.A NO. 288 OF 2021 9 2025:KER:44044 or independent witness is usually created at the time of such

entrustment. This lack of documentation puts her at a

disadvantage if a dispute arises later. When she files a case

alleging misappropriation of her gold and cash, the burden of proof

becomes a hurdle for her. Recognising this difficulty, the courts

have to adopt a humane and practical approach and decide the

issue of entrustment and recovery of stridhan on the principle of

preponderance of probabilities. The preponderance of probability

refers to the greater likelihood of one event or fact over another. It

is not about certainty or eliminating all doubts but rather about

weighing evidence to see which side presents a more probable

scenario. It would not be reasonable and prudent to insist

production of documents for such entrustment, which took place in

a family.

15. If a woman testifies that her gold ornaments

were taken by her husband or in-laws under the pretext of safe

keeping and it was never returned, and if her statement is

consistent and credible and supported by circumstantial or oral

evidence, the Court can accept it, especially if the husband or in-

laws failed to give a satisfactory explanation as to what happened

to the gold and cash brought by the bride to the matrimonial MAT.A NO. 288 OF 2021 10 2025:KER:44044 home.

16. In William David @ Bijo and others v. Linu Mary

George (2010(4) KHC 748), Bexy Michael v. A.J.Michael (2010(4)

KHC 376), Jubairiya M.K v. Abusalih and another (2013(2) KHC

304) and Rajesh P.P and another v. Deepthi.P.R (2021(4) KLT

455) this Court has consistently held that it would be unreasonable

for anyone to look for documentary evidence or totally

independent oral evidence to show the quantity of gold ornaments

and cash that changed hands at the time of marriage and even in

the absence of documentary evidence to prove the payment of

money and gold, the oral evidence of the parties if found

believable can be relied on by the Court for granting relief. It was

also held that the standard of a prudent person has to be imported

by the Court while evaluating the evidence available and the court

has to bank on its reserves of knowledge of men, matters and

circumstances to resolve the dispute and it would be puerile,

irrational and unjust for a court to throw its hands up and say that

it cannot decide the issue on the basis of the materials available.

17. In Pankajakshan Nair v. Shylaja and Ors.

(2017(1) KHC 620), a Division Bench of this Court held that when

the husband and wife live together, it is only probable that the MAT.A NO. 288 OF 2021 11 2025:KER:44044 valuables of the wife will be entrusted with the husband for safe

custody, and when the plea of the husband is that wife took back

the gold ornaments, it is for the husband to prove the same.

18. In the case in hand, in spite of the specific

allegation made by petitioner that it was the 1 st respondent who

misappropriated her gold ornaments, he did not choose to enter

into the witness box and to speak his case on oath. Therefore, an

adverse inference can be drawn against the 1st respondent.

19. Petitioner has succeeded in establishing her case

that 1st respondent has not returned her 45 sovereigns of gold

ornaments entrusted to him. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to get

back 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the 1st respondent.

In the result, the Mat.Appeal fails and is accordingly