The court upheld the genuineness of the marriage register and ordered the return of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments, while rejecting the claim for Rs.75,000 due to insufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Sathish Ninan, J.

The original petition filed by the wife against the husband and the mother-in-law, seeking return of money and gold, was decreed in part. Challenging that part of the decree that declined relief, the wife-petitioner is in appeal.

2. The marriage between the wife and the husband was solemnised on 24.10.2001. According to the wife, at the time of marriage she was provided with 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments and an amount of Rs.75,000/-. The gold and money were misappropriated by the respondents. After the marriage, in the year 2004, as demanded by the respondents, a further amount of Rs.47,000/- was given to them. The relationship fell apart and they have been living separately since the year 2010. The original petition was filed seeking return of 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.1,22,000/- (75,000 + 47,000).

3. The respondents contended that, at the time of marriage the petitioner-wife had only 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It was contended that, out of the said quantity, the petitioner's mother pledged 15 sovereigns and the balance quantity is with the petitioner herself. They denied the alleged entrustment of Rs.75,000/- at the time of marriage. With regard to the payment of Rs.47,000/-, it was claimed that the said amount was a loan from the petitioner's father and the said amount was repaid after six months, with interest.

4. The Family Court granted a decree against the 1^st respondent-husband alone, and that too for recovery of 25 sovereigns of gold and for Rs.47,000/-.

5. We have heard the learned counsel on either side.

6. As noticed, the claim is for 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments which the petitioner allegedly had at the time of marriage. Ext.A5 is the copy of the relevant page of the marriage register maintained by SNDP Sakha Yogam. Ext.X1 is the copy of such register summoned from the Sakha Yogam. The register contains an entry that the petitioner-wife had 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents challenges the genuineness of the marriage register - Ext.A5=Ext.X1. It is pertinent to note that, while PW1 (petitioner) was cross-examined, it is suggested to her that his father who was sick and the husband who did not know malayalam were made to sign on blank sheet in the register. The relevant suggestion reads thus;

8. The President of SNDP Sakha Yogam was examined as PW2. We do not find anything in his evidence to discredit him. There is no material to doubt the genuineness of the Sakha register or the entry in the register.

9. Ext.A3 series are the photographs taken at the time of marriage. When the wife, who was examined as PW1, was cross-examined, the suggestion was that the photographs were fabricated in such a manner as to make it appear that she was wearing 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The suggestion also supports the entry in the marriage register that the wife had 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments.

10. The father of the petitioner was employed at Gulf much prior to the marriage. The capacity to raise such quantity is also probabilised.

11. On the above discussions, we find that the petitioner was provided with 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage.

12. It is not in dispute that even at the time of marriage the father of the 1^st respondent was suffering from cancer. Necessarily, amounts were required for his treatment. While the petitioner-wife was cross-examined, it is suggested to her that the gold ornaments of the petitioner were sold jointly by the petitioner's parents and the 2^nd respondent in a jewellery shop at Thrissur. The suggestion that the petitioner's parents were present at the time of sale was denied by the petitioner. Thus there was sale of gold ornaments is practically brought to light by the suggestion above. These probabilise the case of the petitioner with regard to the misappropriation of the gold ornaments. The respondents are bound to return the gold ornaments to the petitioner.

13. The