IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

C.Pratheep Kumar, J.

This is an appeal filed by the petitioner in O.P.540/2013 on the file of the Family Court, Mavelikkara against the judgment dated 30.1.2014 dismissing the above O.P.

2. The appellant preferred the above O.P for return of gold ornaments or its value from the respondents who are her husband and mother-in-law. The marriage between the appellant and the 1st respondent was solemnized on 2.7.2006. According to the appellant, at the time of marriage, her father had given her 101 sovereigns of gold ornaments. In addition to the same, she received 23 sovereigns of gold ornaments by way of gift from her relatives. According to the appellant, since the date of marriage the respondents started harassing her and subjected her to cruelty alleging that she is not beautiful and also that she has not brought sufficient gold as expected by them. A child was born in the wedlock on 23.4.2007. Her relatives had given 6 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the child. She regularly used to wear only 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The remaining 125 sovereigns including 119 sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to her and 6 sovereigns belonging to the child are with the respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, in the petition she prayed for a decree for return of 125 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value from respondents 1 and 2.

3. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PW1 to 4, RW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A12 and Exts.B1 to B3. After evaluating the available evidence, the learned Family Court Judge dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the above judgment and decree, the petitioner preferred this appeal, raising various grounds.

4. Now the point that arise for consideration is the following :-

Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court calls for any interference, in the light of the grounds raised in the appeal?

5. At the time of arguments the respondents did not turn up. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

6. The point :-

According to the appellant, at the time of marriage on 2.7.2006, her father had given her 101 sovereigns of gold ornaments. In addition to the same, 23 sovereigns of gold ornaments were gifted by her relatives. After the birth of the child, another 6 sovereigns of gold ornaments were gifted by her relatives to the child. Out of the above total 130 sovereigns of gold ornaments, she used to wear only 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments and the remaining 125 sovereigns of gold ornaments are with the respondents. The claim of the appellant that at the time of marriage she was wearing 101 sovereigns of gold ornaments was not seriously challenged by the respondents. The stand taken by the respondents is to the effect that they are not aware of the quantity of the gold ornaments worn by the appellant at the time of marriage. Further according to them, the entire gold ornaments belonging to the petitioner and child are in her own possession.

7. The appellant as PW1 and her father as PW2 deposed in clear terms that the appellant was having 101 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. Ext.A8 is the copy of relevant page of the marriage register kept at SNDP Branch No.525 in which the quantity of gold ornaments worn by the bride at the time of marriage was mentioned as approximately 101 sovereigns (808 grams). Ext.A8 was proved by PWs 3 and 4, the Secretaries of the SNDP branch. The respondents have not disputed the genuineness of Ext.A8. The only objection raised by the respondents with regard to Ext.A8 is that in the relevant column for the signature of the guardian of the bride-groom, instead of getting the signature of his guardian, the signature of his brother-in-law was obtained. In addition to Ext.A8, the appellant relied upon Ext.A2 retail invoice issued from Joy Alukkas Jewellery, Kollam as well as Ext.A5 wedding photograph of the appellant. From the evidence of PWs 1 to 4, and Exts.A8, A2 and A5, it can be safely concluded that at the time of marriage