Trust obligations under the Dowry Prohibition Act facilitate recovery claims of dowry items if actual entrustment is established.

JUDGMENT

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

The petitioner in O.P.No.405 of 2010 before the Family Court, Kollam is the appellant. She filed O.P.No.405 of 2010 seeking recovery of money and return of gold ornaments and movables. The Family Court as per the common judgment in O.P.Nos.404 and 405 of 2010 dated 26.08.2015 allowed O.P.No.405 of 2010 only in part. The appellant was allowed to recover a few movables included in the petition schedule. Her claim for recovery of money and return of gold ornaments was declined. Aggrieved by the said part of the decree, this appeal has been filed under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 .

2. Notice was directed to be served on the respondent as per order dated 08.01.2016. The respondent entered appearance through his learned counsel. The appeal was admitted on 29.03.2017.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. The marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 18.08.2002. Betrothal of the marriage was held on 09.06.2002. On that day, Rs.5 lakhs was entrusted by the father of the appellant to the respondent. On the occasion of the marriage, the appellant was given 100 sovereigns of gold ornaments. After the marriage, respondent was given Rs.1 lakh by the father of the appellant to avail a locker facility. The gold ornaments of the appellant were kept in the locker availed in her name. The entire gold ornaments were eventually appropriated by the respondent. Later, an amount of Rs.2 lakhs was given by the father of the appellant to the respondent for purchasing a property in the name of the appellant.

5. The relationship between the appellant and the respondent eventually became estranged. O.P.No.404 of 2010 was filed by the respondent for a decree of dissolution of marriage. O.P.No.405 of 2010 was filed by the appellant for recovery of gold ornaments, movables and realisation of money. O.P.No.404 of 2010 was decreed and the marriage was dissolved. O.P.No.405 of 2010 was not decreed as prayed. The appellant would contend that the Family Court without appreciating the evidence in a proper perspective, rejected her claim for return of gold ornaments and realisation of money.

6. The appellant would urge that her oral testimony along with the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 and Exts.A5 photographs sufficiently proved the fact that the appellant had 100 sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage. PW1 deposed before the court that the gold ornaments kept in the locker availed in the name of the appellant were taken away and misappropriated by the respondent. Regarding payment of Rs. 5 lakhs, evidence of PW1 and PW4, who is a family friend, was let in. The appellant claims that the evidence amply proved payment of Rs.5 lakhs. But the Family Court did not accept that evidence stating flimsy reasons. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that oral testimonies of PWs.1 and 4 with respect to the practice prevailing in the area of making payment of money at the time of betrothal is convincing. Mere denial by RW1 in the box was given overemphasis by the Family Court. It is further submitted that trivial inconsistencies in the evidence of PWs 1 and 4 was highlighted by the Family Court in order to disbelieve them, which is wrong. It is also submitted that even the admission of the respondent that 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to the appellant at the time of marriage was not acted upon by the Family Court. Accordingly, the learned counsel contended that findings of the Family Court regarding misappropriation of gold ornaments and Rs.5 lakhs paid at the time of betrothal are liable to be reversed.

7. As regards payment of Rs.1 lakh for availing locker facility in the name of the appellant and another Rs.1 lakhs for the purchase of the property, the Family Court took the view that the evidence goes contrary to the pleadings of the appellant. The contention of the appellant is that Rs.1 lakh was paid