IMPORTANT POINT
Gold ornaments given at marriage are considered Sreedhan, and the burden of proof in civil cases is based on preponderance of probabilities, not rigid legal proof.

JUDGMENT :

M.B.Snehalatha, J.

In this appeal, the appellant calls into question the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment and decree of the Family Court, Ernakulam which dismissed her claim for return of gold ornaments and other personal belongings scheduled therein.

2. The parties shall be referred to by their rank in O.P.No.1301/2016.

3. The facts in brief are as follows:

The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 09.09.2010. A child was born on 22.12.2011 in the said wedlock. At the time of marriage, petitioner was given 63 sovereigns of gold ornaments by her parents. A gold chain weighing 2 sovereigns was given to the respondent. Her cousins had gifted her 6 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The entire gold ornaments of the petitioner excluding the gold ornaments for her regular wear are with the respondent. Initially, the ornaments were kept in an almirah in the bedroom of the petitioner and the respondent. On the 3^rd day of marriage, ie on 12.9.2010, when she along with the respondent had gone to visit her house, the said gold ornaments were shifted to the almirah in the bedroom of the parents of the respondent for safe custody. After the marriage, respondent had made a demand for an amount of Rs.5 lakhs from her father for paying the balance amount payable towards the sale consideration of an apartment purchased by him. But the parents of the petitioner could not oblige to the said demand. Marital discord arose between them and their marriage went through rough weather. Petitioner is entitled to get back her 65 1/2 sovereigns of gold ornaments described as A Schedule in the original petition from the respondent. Respondent is also liable to return the petition B schedule household articles.

4. The respondent filed counter denying the allegations levelled in the petition. He contended that he has not taken any gold ornaments of the petitioner and, therefore not liable to return any gold ornaments or other movables scheduled in the petition.

5. After trial, the learned Family Court dismissed the Original Petition on the ground that petitioner failed to establish her claim for return of gold ornaments and household articles.

6. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the impugned judgment and decree warrant any interference by this Court.

7. Admittedly, the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 9.9.2010 in accordance with the religious rites and ceremonies of Hindus. It is also an admitted fact that a child was born to them in the said wedlock.

8. Petitioner's case is that at the time of marriage, she was given 63 sovereigns of gold ornaments by her parents. A gold chain weighing two sovereigns was given to the respondent. In addition to the 63 sovereigns given to her by her parents, her relatives had also gifted 6 sovereigns of gold ornaments to her.

9. Petitioner, who was examined as PW1 has testified that except the thali chain, one bangle and two rings used for her regular wear, the rest of the gold ornaments were kept at the matrimonial home. Her version is that after the marriage, her gold ornaments were kept in an almirah in their bedroom. On the third day of the marriage, ie. on 12.9.2010, while she along with the respondent went to her parental home, the gold ornaments were shifted to the almirah in the bedroom of the parents of the respondent. According to PW1, her gold ornaments are under the custody of the respondent and she is entitled to get back the gold ornaments weighing 65½ sovereigns detailed as A schedule in the Original Petition. Her case is that out of 65½ sovereigns, 59½ sovereigns are the gold ornaments given by her parents and six sovereigns are the gold ornaments gifted to her by her relatives at the time of marriage.

10. PW2 who is the father of the petitioner has also testified that at the time of marriage, he had given 63 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the petitioner and had also given a gold chain weighing two sovereigns to