2024 Supreme(SC) 376

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta, JJ.
Maya Gopinathan – Appellant
Versus
Anoop S.B. & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5296 of 2024 [Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No.13398 of 2022]
Decided On : 24-04-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Stridhan – Gifts made to bride by bride’s husband or her parents or by relatives from side of her husband or parents, at the time of marriage, constitute her Stridhan.
(2) There can be no inferences unless there are objective facts, direct or circumstantial, from which to infer other fact which it is sought to establish.

Headnote:

(A) Stridhan – Misappropriation of Gold Jewellery by in-laws – Reversal of relief granted to appellant by Family Court – Gold utilised by respondents to discharge their pre-existing financial liabilities which arose in business activities – Family Court undertook exhaustive examination of depositions rendered by witnesses to conclude that respondents had indeed misappropriated jewellery entrusted to them by appellant – Respondents did not specifically deny appellant’s allegation that she had brought with her to matrimonial home 89 sovereigns of gold jewellery – Such an omission to specifically deny allegation was held by Family Court to amount to an admission – Impugned judgment is legally unsustainable because of an erroneous approach adopted by High Court by demanding a standard of proof as if it were seized of a criminal trial as well as by basing its findings on assumptions and suppositions which cannot be said to be borne from evidence on record – Appellant did not lodge any complaint of criminal breach of trust but by initiating civil proceedings, sought return of money equivalent to her Stridhan property which stood lost forever – Family Court rightly concluded that there being an element of entrustment, disposal and non-return of such jewellery by first respondent would constitute misappropriation – Gifts made to bride by bride’s husband or her parents or by relatives from side of her husband or parents, at the time of marriage, constitute her Stridhan – First respondent could lay no claim over the same, since there was nothing to suggest that jewellery was a gift merely temporary in nature, with its return being expected in future – Impugned judgment of High Court is set aside and Judgment of Family Court that appellant is entitled to relief is accepted – In exercise of power conferred by Article 142 of Constitution of India sum of Rs 25,00,000/- awarded to appellant. (Paras 13, 16, 21, 30, 36 and 37)

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 – Standard of Proof – Normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact can be said to be established if it is proved by a preponderance of probabilities – Proof beyond reasonable doubt is proof by a higher standard which generally governs criminal trials or trials involving inquiry into issues of a quasi-criminal nature – Inference from evidence and circumstances must be carefully distinguished from conjectures or speculation – Since mind is prone to take pleasure to adapt circumstances to one another and even in straining them a little to force them to form parts of one connected whole, there must be evidence - direct or circumstantial - to deduce necessary inferences in proof of facts in issue – There can be no inferences unless there are objective facts, direct or circumstantial, from which to infer other fact which it is sought to establish – In some cases, other facts can be inferred, as much as is practical, as if they had been actually observed – In other cases, inferences do not go beyond reasonable probability – If there are no positive proved facts - oral, documentary, or circumstantial - from which inferences can be drawn, method of inference would fail and what would remain is mere speculation or conjecture – When drawing an inference of proof that a fact in dispute is held to be established, there must be some material facts or circumstances on record from which such an inference could be drawn – In civil cases including matrimonial disputes of a civil nature, standard of proof is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but preponderance of probabilities tending to draw an inference that fact must be more probable. (Paras 18 and 20)

(C) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal – Scope and ambit – It is true that a finding of fact recorded by a high court is not ordinarily disturbed by Supreme Court but it is not a rigid rule, cast in a straitjacket formula, which can never be departed from – It is always open to this Court, in diverse situations, to test whether conclusions of fact reached upon consideration of probabilities contain any serious error. (Para 22)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal assails final judgment and order dated 5th April, 2022 of High Court of Kerala in a matrimonial appeal. High Court partly allowed appeal of respondents and set aside relief granted to appellant by Family Court, Alappuzha, Kerala.

Findings of Court:

First respondent shall pay Rs 25,00,000/- to appellant within six months from date, failing which he shall be liable to pay to appellant interest @ 6 % per annum on said sum from this date till date of full payment. In default of payment as indicated above, appellant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings for realisation thereof in accordance with law.

Result : Appeal allowed.