In matrimonial disputes, the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probabilities, allowing for recovery of misappropriated property based on credible oral evidence.

JUDGMENT :

M.B. Snehalatha, J.

1. The appellant is the petitioner in O.P. No.187/2022 of Family Court, Muvattupuzha. The said Original Petition seeking return of gold ornaments and cash was allowed in part by the Family Court by granting a decree for return of cash. Aggrieved by the declinment of her claim for return of gold ornaments, she has preferred this appeal.

2. The parties shall be referred to by their rank in O.P. No.187/2022.

3. Petitioner’s case is that her marriage with the 1^st respondent was solemnized on 10.3.2002; that at the time of marriage, she was given 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of Rs. 1 lakh. In the wedlock, three children were born to them. 2^nd respondent is the mother and 3^rd respondent is the sister of the 1^st respondent. Respondents misappropriated the entire gold ornaments and cash of the petitioner to meet their personal needs. Apart from Rs. 1 lakh given at the time of marriage, petitioner had brought another sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from her house for the purpose of reconstructing the house of the respondents. Respondents subjected the petitioner to cruelty and on 7.8.2016 they ousted her from the matrimonial home. She filed the Original Petition claiming return of 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of Rs. 2,50,000/- misappropriated by the respondents.

4. Respondents filed objection denying the case of the petitioner that she had 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments. They also denied the receipt of Rs. 1 lakh from the parents of the petitioner. According to them, petitioner hails from a poor family; that they never demanded any cash or gold at the time of marriage and they have not taken the gold ornaments of the petitioner. Petitioner herself was dealing with her gold ornaments and it is in her possession and respondents have not misappropriated any gold ornaments of the petitioner.

5. As mentioned in the opening paragraph, the learned Family Court allowed the Original Petition in part, granting relief of return of cash of Rs. 2.5 lakhs with 6% interest. But the relief sought for return of gold ornaments was declined.

6. The finding of the learned Family Court that petitioner was given Rs. 1 lakh from her house in connection with her marriage and subsequently a further sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was given for reconstruction of the house of the 1^st respondent and the respondents are liable to return the said amount to the petitioner has become final as there is no challenge by the respondents from that part of the judgment and decree.

7. The only question for consideration in this appeal is whether the finding of the Family Court declining the relief of return of gold ornaments needs any interference by this Court.

8. The parties are Muslims. Admittedly, the marriage between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent was solemnized on 10.3.2002. The petitioner, who was examined as PW1 has testified that at the time of fixing the marriage, there was an understanding between her family members and the family members of the 1^st respondent that 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs. 1 lakh would be given to her as patrimony. According to her, on the date of marriage, she had adorned with 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Her case is that her entire gold ornaments were misappropriated by the respondents by selling it on various occasions.

9. PW2 is the brother of PW1. He has also testified that at the time of marriage, petitioner was given 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of Rs. 1 lakh. Subsequently, another sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was given for renovation of the matrimonial home of the petitioner. He has also testified that respondents misappropriated the entire gold ornaments of the petitioner, and they subjected the petitioner to cruelty.

10. As against the case of the petitioner, 1^st respondent, who was examined as RW1, has testified that the petitioner hails from a poor family; that she had only 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. He denied to have received any amount from the peti