The court adopted a pragmatic approach in disputes involving the return of gold ornaments, recognizing the inherent difficulties women face in evidencing familial entrustments, thus adopting a preponderance of probabilities standard.

JUDGMENT :

M.B. Snehalatha, J.

1. Appellants are the respondents in O.P.No.669/2015 on the file of Family Court, Tirur. The said Original Petition was filed by the petitioner for return of her gold ornaments. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Family Court directed the appellants to return 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the respondent/petitioner in O.P.

2. Parties shall be referred to by their rank in the Original Petition.

3. The marriage between the petitioner and Pradeep, who is the son of 2^nd respondent and brother of 1^st respondent, was solemnized on 25.4.2012. During the time of marriage, petitioner’s husband Pradeep was employed abroad. On her wedding day, petitioner was adorned with 81 sovereigns of gold ornaments, including 6 sovereigns of gold ornaments gifted on the date of fixation of marriage by her husband Pradeep. After the marriage, petitioner's husband Pradeep returned to his workplace abroad. The 1^st respondent is the brother of Pradeep. 2^nd respondent is his mother. Respondents 1 and 2 obtained the entire gold ornaments of the petitioner under the guise of safekeeping. While residing in the matrimonial home, respondents subjected the petitioner to cruelty, demanding more gold and cash and tortured her. On 16.1.2013, petitioner’s husband, Pradeep committed suicide at his workplace abroad. After the death of her husband, petitioner continued in the matrimonial home for 15 days. Thereafter, owing to the pressure from her in-laws, she had to leave the matrimonial home. In spite of repeated demands, respondents have not returned the gold ornaments weighing 81 sovereigns entrusted to them and therefore the Original Petition was filed for return of 81 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value.

4. Respondents filed counter denying the entrustment of 81 sovereigns of gold ornaments to them and its misappropriation. They denied the case of the petitioner that she had 81 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. Further, they contended that the entire gold ornaments of the petitioner were with herself. They also contended that in connection with the marriage, they had given 13.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the petitioner; that the said gold ornaments are retained by the petitioner. They denied the allegations of cruelty made against them and denied their liability to return any gold ornaments.

5. The evidence consists of the oral testimonies of PW1, PW2 and RW1 and documents marked as Exts.P1 to P3.

6. At the outset we may state that the observation made by the learned Family Court Judge in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment that 1^st and 2^nd respondents have not entered into the witness box is a mistake. In fact, 1^st respondent has entered into the witness box and he was examined as RW1.

7. After trial, the Family Court allowed the petition in part, directing the appellants herein/respondents in the O.P to return 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the petitioner.

8. Assailing the said judgment and decree, the appellants/respondents in O.P, have preferred this appeal contending that the Family Court has erred in appreciating the evidence in its correct perspective; that the father of the petitioner had no financial capacity to give 81 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the petitioner. Therefore, the Family Court went wrong in directing the respondents to return 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It was further contended that Ext.P2 series bills and Ext.P3 series photographs produced by the petitioner are neither acceptable nor legally admissible, and there is no acceptable and cogent evidence regarding the entrustment of the gold by the petitioner to the res