IMPORTANT POINT
Gifts given to a wife during marriage are her absolute property, and upon dissolution of marriage, the husband is entitled to reclaim only the thali chain, which symbolizes the marital bond.

JUDGMENT :

Sathish Ninan, J.

The original petition filed by the husband against the wife seeking return of gold ornaments and money, was dismissed by the Family Court. The husband is in appeal.

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25.01.2009. The marital life fell in doldrums. The petitioner-husband alleges that he had entrusted the respondent-wife a Thali chain having 5 ¼ sovereigns and a gold navaratna ring worth Rs. 15,000/-. His mother had, at the time of engagement, gave one gold bangle having one sovereign of gold. His sister had given a gold bangle having one and a half sovereign, the mother had given gold Pathakkam having four grams and gold jimikki and stud having one sovereign. His mother's sister had given gold bangle having six grams. His chitta had given ring having 4 grams. The ornaments were given in lieu of love and affection towards the respondent-wife. The petitioner further claims that, immediately after the marriage he had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- in the name of the respondent with the State Bank of India, Cherpu branch, followed by a further deposit of Rs. 10,000/- for availing a locker facility with the Federal Bank, Cherpu branch in the name of the respondent. The deposits were also in consideration of love and affection and was to be returned as and when required. Matrimonial relationship having broken down, he claims return of the gold and money.

3. The respondent filed objections denying the allegations that the petitioner's mother had given 'jimikki' and 'pathakkam' as claimed. While she admitted that the mother had given a bangle, she pleaded ignorance of its weight. She further admitted that she was given gold ornaments by the mother's sister etc. as claimed by the petitioner. With regard to the thali chain, she contended that she wore the thali on a thin chain. She further contended that gold ornaments were got returned by the petitioner and his mother.

4. With regard to the deposit with the State Bank of India Cherpu branch it was contended that the deposit was of Rs. 35,000/- and not Rs. 25,000/- and that it was by her father. Further, with regard to the deposit of Rs. 10,000/- for availing a locker facility, it was contended that it is a joint locker in the names of the petitioner and the respondent, and that the said locker facility is still in existence and that no amounts are payable with regard to the same.

5. The Family Court held that the claim of the petitioner-husband is in respect of gifts given to the wife during the time of marriage which is her 'sthridhana' property. It is her absolute property, and the petitioner is not entitled to recover the same. With regard to the deposit of Rs. 35,000/-, the court accepted the respondent's case that the deposit was by her father. With regard to Rs. 10,000/- deposited towards bank locker, it was found that since the locker facility is still in existence, petitioner is not entitled to claim amounts under the said head. Accordingly the original petition is dismissed.

6. We have heard Sri.K.Ramakumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-husband and Sri.Yeshwanth Shenoy, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife.

7. The points that arise for determination are:-

(i) Does the finding of the Family Court that the petitioner-husband is not entitled to recover the gold ornaments given to the respondent-wife in connection with the marriage, sustainable?

(ii) Was the Family Court right in having declined the claim for the Bank deposits?

8. With regard to the petitioner's claim for gold ornaments, the relevant pleading is at paragraph 4 of the original petition. The same reads thus:-

“4. The petitioner had also entrusted the respondent the thali chain having 5 ¼ sovereigns at the time of marriage. The petitioner had given the respondent a gold Navaratna ring worth Rs.15,000/-. The petitioner's mother had given one gold bangle having 1 sovereign at the time of engagement, his sister had given a gold bangle having 1 1/2 sovereigns,