What is the nature, extent and quality of evidence which a prudent person would expect and demand in the facts and circumstances of the case to come to a safe conclusion about ornaments and cash which had changed hands at the time of marriage? This is the crucial question, the answer to which must resolve the controversy in this appeal.

2. The parties are divorced spouses now. Their marriage took place on 6/9/03. The spouses started separate residence on 28/11/06. A girl child aged about 5 years on the date of the petition was born in the matrimony. It was an acrimonious marriage. The husband filed an application for divorce as O.P.No.117/07. The wife evidently did not think it worthwhile to fight in a court of law to salvage the marriage. She instead came to the Family Court with O.P.No.195/07 with a claim for return of money and gold. Be it noted that at that time the petition for divorce was also pending before the Family Court.

3. The contention of the wife, to put it in a nutshell, is that an amount of Rs.3 lakhs and 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments had changed hands at the time of marriage. Of this, she had taken back 40 sovereigns and 10 sovereigns were remaining in the custody of her husband. She specifically asserted that the gold and ornaments were handed over in the presence of Eeendickal Appachan – the direct paternal uncle of the husband. She prayed that the amount of Rs.3 lakhs may be ordered to be returned with interest at the rate of 10% per annum and the value of gold ornaments weighing 10 sovereigns which remained in the custody of the husband which he valued at Rs.66,000/- (at the rate of Rs.6,600/- per sovereign) may be ordered to be returned along with interest at such rate as may be fixed by the court.

4. The respondent/husband entered appearance and resisted the claim. It is significant that he did not admit that his wife had brought any amount or ornaments to the matrimonial home after marriage. It was a case of blanket denial. We find it relevant straightaway to advert to the fact that even though was a specific assertion that Eeendickal Appachan (P.W.3) – who is the brother of the father of the respondent was present and know about the property that had changed hands, this fact was not adverted to or denied in the counter statement. It was thus a simple case of blanket denial. No cash is liable to be returned. No ornament is liable to be returned, asserted the respondent.

5. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The appellant/wife examined herself as P.W.1 She took the risk of examining two brothers of the father of the husband as witnesses on her side. They gave evidence, at least, partly in favour of the wife. The husband examined himself as R.W.1. In the course of cross-examination, for the first time, he stated that his father’s brothers have an animus against him. He further admitted that his wife had gone back to her paternal home taking with her 40 sovereigns of gold. It is further seen that the husband made an admission that she was having 13 sovereigns gold ornaments when she came to the matrimonial home.

6. The court below, on an anxious consideration of the rival sides of oral evidence, surprisingly according to us, sailed to the conclusion that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 do all deserve to be rejected lock, stock and barrel. The plea of the husband in the written statement that no ornaments or cash was liable to be returned was accepted by the court below. Accordingly, the court below proceeded to pass the impugned order throwing over board the claim of the appellant/wife.

7. It is admitted that subsequently the divorce petition has been allowed and the marriage stands dissolved without contest. No settlement has been arrived at regarding properties, ornaments, maintenance etc., of the wife and child.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/wife and the respondent/husband. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned order on the ground that