In asset recovery cases, the current market value must be reflected in decrees regarding movable property, ensuring fair compensation based on actual value at recovery time.

JUDGMENT :

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The unfailing regularity with which the the assertion of inequity is pressed before this Court by decree holders – enjoying decrees for return of gold issued by the learned Family Courts – qua the alternate direction to judgment debtors to pay its value, on the ground that it invariably represents an exiguous worth by the time its recovery becomes possible - on account of lapse of time spent in appeals and further forensic proceedings - as also considerable appreciation of the actual value of the gold, persuades us to answer it through this judgment, especially since plea for modification of the impugned judgment and decree - to enhance the amount to be paid as per the value of the gold at the time of its actual recovery - has been impelled before us through Cross objections.

2. In challenge in this appeal, is the judgment of the learned Family Court, Thiruvalla, in OP No.36/2015, which was decided on 07.05.2019, along with another matter.

3. The first appellant was married to the respondent, but matrimonial disputes appear to have arisen between them, which led to the latter filing the afore mentioned Original Petition seeking divorce; as also sought for return of her gold, fixed deposits and other articles by the former, which has been now decreed by the learned Family Court through the judgment in question.

4. The specific case of the respondent — wife, in the Original Petition was that she had gold ornaments weighing 115 sovereigns with her at the time of marriage, which was entrusted by her to the third appellant - her mother-in-law on 19.04.2012. She also had a case that she had entrusted certain cash and fixed deposits, but they have now become irrelevant because, it is conceded by her own counsel - Sri.Joseph P.Alex, that all such have been returned.

5. According to the respondent, she, along with the appellants, traveled to Mumbai on 22.04.2012, with her gold being in the custody of her husband — namely the first appellant herein, and her mother-in-law – the third appellant herein; and that subsequently, she left for Dubai for employment on 10.05.2012, to return on 04.06.2012. She says that all her ornaments, along with the other valuables and fixed deposits, were thereafter transferred to a Bank locker opened by the first appellant in their joint names; and that he operated it on his own at least nine times thereafter, thus removing all of them without her consent or knowledge. She thus prayed that the appellants be directed to return 85 sovereigns of gold - conceding that, out of 115 sovereigns, 30 had been earlier returned to her, along with certain fixed deposits, cash and such other – or Rs.18,70,000/- being its value on the date of petition, along with interest.

6. As we have said above, what is in controversy in this appeal at this stage is only the gold ornaments of weight 85 sovereigns and not any other, though the respondent has filed the afore cited Cross Objection seeking that the admitted gold of 5 sovereigns and Rs.37,000/- (Rs.25,000+Rs.12,000) be ordered to be additionally returned by the appellants herein. Her cross appeal, adscititiously contains a plea that the amounts shown in the decree - being the value of the gold - be altered to be as per the market value at the time of its actual return, since what she sought, as the primary plea, in the Original Petition was return of gold itself in specie, with its value shown only as an alternative one.

7. Sri.K.G.Cleetus - appearing for the appellants, began his submissions arguing that the evidence o