Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, M.B. Snehalatha, JJ.
Muneera – Petitioner
Versus
Mariyumma And Ors. – Respondents
MAT.APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2018
Decided On : 13-12-2024
(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 101 and 102 - Claim for return of gold ornaments and cash - Petitioner failed to prove entrustment of gold ornaments and cash to respondents - The burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish the facts asserted - Mere assertions without reliable evidence are insufficient for relief. (Paras 17, 21, 25, 26)
(B) Matrimonial Law - The court emphasized the necessity of specific pleadings and evidence regarding the entrustment of gold ornaments to the husband and in-laws - In the absence of proof regarding entrustment, the relief sought cannot be granted. (Paras 25, 26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed return of gold ornaments and cash from her in-laws, alleging misappropriation, while the respondents denied the claims and contended that the petition was filed at the behest of the petitioner's husband to exert pressure on them.
Findings of Court:
The Family Court dismissed the petitioner's claim for lack of evidence substantiating her assertions regarding the entrustment of gold ornaments and cash.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner established that the respondents misappropriated her gold ornaments and cash.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner failed to prove the essential element of entrustment, which is crucial in claims for return of gold ornaments and cash.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
M.B.Snehalatha.J
This matrimonial appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in O.A.No.178/2013 on the file of Family Court, Kozhikode by which appellant’s claim for return of gold ornaments and realisation of amount from the respondents was declined.
2. Parties in this appeal shall be referred to by their rank in O.A.No.178/2013. R2 died during the pendency of this appeal and his legal heirs were brought on record.
3. Petitioner's case is that her marriage with Muhammed Asharaf who is the son of respondents 1 and 2 and the brother of respondent No.3 was solemnized on 18.10.2008; that after the marriage, she resided along with her husband in his tharawad house at Mavoor. Three children were born in the said wedlock. At the time of marriage, she was given 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.3 lakhs from her house. In the evening of the wedding day itself, respondent Nos.1 and 2 took her 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.3 lakhs for keeping the same in their safe custody. Since the petitioner’s husband Muhammed Asharaf has no house or landed property of his own, respondents agreed to transfer 10 cents of property in his name on payment of Rs.1 lakh. Accordingly, petitioner gave Rs.1 lakh to the respondents and a karar for conveying the property in the name of petitioner’s husband Muhammed Asharaf was executed on 25.11.2009 and thereafter, petitioner started construction of a house in the said property. But the respondents failed to transfer the property in the name of petitioner’s husband as agreed. Respondents 1 to 3 tortured the petitioner demanding more gold and cash and accordingly on 10.1.2011 petitioner again brought Rs.2 lakhs from her home. On the said date, R3 took the remaining 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of Rs.2 lakhs from the petitioner and utilized the same for her own needs. On 28.12.2011, respondents again demanded Rs.2 lakhs from the petitioner. When the petitioner refused to oblige to the said demand, R3 manhandled the petitioner and the respondents ousted the petitioner and her children from the house. R1 and R2 are liable to return 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of Rs.3 lakhs to the petitioner. R3 is liable to return 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.2 lakhs.
4. The respondents resisted the claim contending that the petitioner filed the OA in collusion with her husband Muhammed Asharaf who is on inimical terms with the respondents and who is trying to snatch the landed properties which stand in the name of his parents. Respondents are unaware about the alleged solemnization of marriage on 18.10.2008 and respondent do not know how much gold ornaments were given to the petitioner from her house. Muhammed Asharaf brought the petitioner to the residence of R1 and R2 and introduced her as his wife and thereafter they used to reside in the residence of R1 and R2 occasionally. When Muhammed Asharaf was working at Vandoor, petitioner was also residing at Vandoor. Respondents have not taken any gold ornaments or cash of the petitioner and never demanded any gold or cash as alleged. Muhammed Asharaf was given share from the property of R1 and R2 and he alienated the said property. His two brothers have intellectual disability. By committing impersonation, Muhammed Ashraf availed loan from the bank by mortgaging the property of his brother Shamsuddin and pursuant to the complaint of R1, the police has filed charge sheet against Muhammed Asharaf. Thereafter, Muhammed Asharaf criminally intimidated R1 to withdraw the said case and based on the complaint of R1, the police has registered another case against him. As a counterblast to the said cases, petitioner has filed this petition raising false claims at the instance of her husband. M.C filed by the petitioner against the respondents under the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was also dismissed. Petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs.
5. R3 filed counter statement raising similar contentions and refut
The burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish the entrustment of gold ornaments and cash; mere assertions without reliable evidence are insufficient for relief.
In matrimonial claims for return of gold ornaments, the petitioner must prove entrustment; mere assertions are insufficient for a decree.
A claimant must demonstrate ownership and actual entrustment of gold ornaments, with the burden of proof resting on them, as per legal standards governing such claims.
In matrimonial disputes, the burden of proof for the return of property lies initially with the claimant, requiring evidence of entrustment to substantiate claims.
Dowry Prohibition Act contemplates two aspects; first, prohibition of taking or giving or abetting of giving or taking of dowry and making such acts punishable.
The court affirmed the Family Court's decision to return gold ornaments and cash based on credible evidence supporting the petitioner's claims.
Evidence is evaluated under the principle of preponderance of probability in claims for return of misappropriated items.
Responsibility for returning marriage-related assets lies with the husband, but claims require proper evidence for enforcement.
The court adopted a pragmatic approach in disputes involving the return of gold ornaments, recognizing the inherent difficulties women face in evidencing familial entrustments, thus adopting a prepon....
The court established that oral evidence can substantiate claims for return of gold ornaments in family disputes, emphasizing the husband's burden to account for entrusted property.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
