The court established that a spouse's claim for gold ornaments is valid if substantiated by evidence, emphasizing the fiduciary nature of matrimonial relationships.

JUDGMENT

Sathish Ninan, J.

Challenging the dismissal of the original petition for patrimony and gold, the wife is in appeal. The 1^st respondent is the husband and the 2^nd respondent is his mother.

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 24.06.2000. According to the wife, at the time of marriage, she was provided with 72 sovereigns of gold ornaments and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as patrimony. After the marriage, the gold ornaments and the money were kept with the respondents. Even as against the permission of the wife, the husband sold away the gold ornaments and utilised the money. The wife was expelled from the matrimonial home on 02.03.2009. She claims return of patrimony and gold ornaments.

3. The husband denied the claim that the wife was provided with 72 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.2,00,000/- as patrimony. He also denied the allegation that the same were utilised by him. It was contended that, at the time of marriage the wife had 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments, which were always with her.

4. The Family Court disallowed the claim and hence, the wife is in appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel on either side.

6. The points that arise for determination are;

i) Is the claim of the appellant-wife that she was provided with 72 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.2,00,000/- as patrimony at the time of marriage, substantiated by evidence?

ii) Are the pleadings in the original petition sufficient enough with regard to entrustment and misappropriation of the gold and money by the 1^st respondent?

iii) If at all the wife's claim is established, is there sufficient evidence to fasten the 2^nd respondent (husband's mother) with the liability?

iv) Does the decree and judgment of the Family Court warrant any interference?

7. According to the wife, at the time of marriage, she was provided with 72 sovereigns of gold ornaments and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as patrimony, whereas according to the husband, she had only 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and no money. Ext.A4 series are the photographs of the husband and wife taken at the time of marriage. The genuineness of the photographs are not in dispute. On a perusal of the same it is evident that the claim of the husband that the wife had only 25 sovereigns cannot be correct. She is seen wearing much more than that. Though the claim of 72 sovereigns of gold ornaments would be an exaggeration, 40 sovereigns is probable. The mere fact that the wife was unable to produce any bills for the purchase of the gold ornaments cannot lead to a conclusion that she did not have any gold ornaments. The photographs indicates otherwise. Even according to the husband, the wife had 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments. As we have noticed supra, a bare look at Ext.A4 photographs suggests that the wife was wearing atleast 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It is in evidence that the wife's father was employed abroad at the time of marriage. We find that, at the time of marriage the wife had 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments.

8. With regard to the claim for money, there is no evidence to substantiate the availability of the amount at the relevant time and also the passing of hands. In the absence of any evidence, the said claim is liable to be disallowed.

9. Now, coming to the liability of the husband for the gold ornaments, the Family Court held that the pleadings of the wife are contrary. The Court observed that though it is averred that the ornaments were entrusted with the husband, it is also pleaded that the ornaments were forcibly taken away from her and sold. The Family Court also noticed that, though according to the wife all the ornaments were forcefully taken away in the year 2000, the present o