In matrimonial disputes, the burden of proof lies on the husband to disprove claims of misappropriation of gold ornaments by the wife, with adverse inferences drawn from his failure to testify.

JUDGMENT

M.B.Snehalatha.J

The appellant calls in question the judgment and decree in O.P. No.320/2018 to the extent to which it disallowed her claim for return of gold ornaments, cash and compensation.

2. Appellant filed O.P.No.320/2018 before the Family Court, Alappuzha, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and also sought for return of gold ornaments, cash and compensation.

The marriage between the appellant and the 1^st respondent was solemnized on 4.9.2014. 2^nd respondent is the father of the 1^st respondent. Appellant’s case is that at the time of marriage, she was given 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹1 lakh as cash. Respondents misappropriated the entire gold ornaments of the appellant and the amount of ₹1 lakh. She was subjected to matrimonial cruelty by the 1^st respondent/husband. 1^st respondent is involved in several theft cases. The marriage between the appellant and 1^st respondent has been irretrievably broken.

Appellant is entitled to get back her 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹1 lakh misappropriated by the respondents. Appellant also claimed ₹2 lakhs as compensation for mental agony.

3. Per contra, the husband and father-in-law denied the case of the appellant. They contended that the appellant had only 14 sovereigns of gold ornaments, and the said gold ornaments were in her custody itself. Respondents have not received any money from the appellant or her parents, as alleged. The gold ornaments weighing 118 grams given by the respondents, including the thali chain are also in the custody of the appellant. Respondents have not misappropriated any gold or cash. 1^st respondent/husband denied the allegations regarding cruelty. The 1^st respondent is running a battery repairing shop and the police registered false case against him on suspicion that the batteries in his shop were stolen.

4. By the impugned judgment and decree, though the Family Court granted a decree of divorce, her claim for return of gold, cash and claim for compensation was disallowed.

5. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the judgment and decree of the Family Court, declining the relief of return of gold ornaments, patrimony and compensation needs any interference by this Court. It is not in dispute that the marriage between the appellant and the 1^st respondent was solemnized on 4.9.2014 as per the Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. Appellant’s case is that at the time of her marriage, she was given 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Her parents also gave an amount of ₹1 lakh to the 1^st respondent. Her version is that the 1^st respondent/husband took all her gold ornaments and misappropriated it.

6. According to the respondents, the appellant had only 14 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. Though the appellant has not produced any documents to show that she had 25 sovereigns of gold, respondents would admit that she had 14 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The specific version of the appellant who was examined as PW1 is that while she was residing at the matrimonial home, her husband namely 1^st respondent took away her gold ornaments on various occasions by citing various reasons. As against the said version, the versions of the 2^nd respondent, who is the father of 1^st respondent and who was examined as RW1 is that they have not taken any gold ornaments; that the thali chain weighing 44 grams is still in the possession of the appellant. RW1 has further testified that after one year of the marriage, four bangles having a weight of 36 grams were purchased by the respondent for the use of the appellant. Another bangle weighing one sovereign purchased by the respondent in the year 2016 was also in the possession of the appellant.

7. It is trite that the standard of proof in matrimonial cases is the same as in civil cases ie. the court has to decide the cases based on preponderance of probabilities. In a claim for return of gold ornaments the court has to consider, evaluate and weigh the rival contentions and rival evi