Reinforcing a pragmatic approach in matrimonial disputes, the Kerala High Court has held that a newly married woman cannot be expected to produce formal proof or independent witnesses to establish the entrustment of her gold ornaments to her in-laws.
A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha made this observation while partly allowing a matrimonial appeal arising from a family court's direction to the appellants to return 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the respondent (daughter-in-law).
The case stemmed from a petition filed by the respondent seeking return of 81 sovereigns of gold allegedly entrusted to her husband’s family during her marriage in April 2012. Following the untimely demise of her husband in early 2013, she alleged that she was pressured to leave the matrimonial home, and her repeated demands for return of her jewellery were ignored.
Though the appellants contested the claim, denying both the quantity and the fact of entrustment, the High Court examined documentary evidence including jewellery purchase bills and wedding photographs to conclude that 53 sovereigns were credibly shown to have been acquired by the petitioner’s family. The Court noted that the evidence was supported by both oral and documentary material on record.
The Bench addressed the evidentiary standard applicable in such disputes and observed, “In most Indian households, the entrustment of gold ornaments by a bride to her husband or in-laws occurs in a setting of familial trust within the four walls of the matrimonial home. A newly wedded woman would not be in a position to demand receipts or independent witnesses while handing over the jewellery to the husband or in-laws.”
The Court, while acknowledging the informal nature of domestic transactions, held that requiring strict proof similar to the Criminal standard would be unjust in such circumstances stating, “In such circumstances, strict proof beyond a reasonable doubt as is required in criminal law would lead to injustice, and therefore the Court has to adopt a pragmatic approach and decide the issue of entrustment on the principle of preponderance of probabilities.”
Further, the Court clarified that a woman residing in her matrimonial home, particularly in the early stage of marriage, cannot reasonably be expected to foresee legal disputes and preserve documentary evidence, stating “The woman being a family member, cannot 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, especially in the early stage of her marriage.”
While affirming the Family Court’s decision in part, the High Court found no material linking the brother-in-law (1st appellant) to the custody of the jewellery, noting that he resided separately and was not part of the matrimonial household. The Court held that “The evidence on record would show that petitioner entrusted her 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments with the 2nd respondent for safe keeping.”
Accordingly, the Bench set aside the decree as against the 1st appellant and directed the 2nd appellant (mother-in-law) to return 53 sovereigns of gold to the petitioner, along with costs.
Case Title: XYZ & Anr. Vs. ABC
Case No.: MAT.APPEAL NO. 773 oF 2020
Coram: Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha
Advocate for Appellant: Advs. P.Venugopal, T.J.Maria Goretti, And Ferha Azeez
Advocate for Respondent: Sr. Adv. T.Krishnanunni, Advs. Meena.A., Vinod Ravindranath, M.R.Mini, Ashwin Sathyanath, K.C.Kiran, M.Devesh, Anish Antony Anathazhath, And Thareeq Anver
Picture Source :
