Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 10807
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sathish Ninan, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ
BENNET JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
BIYA BENNET – Respondent
Matrimonial Appeal No. 307 of 2014 | Matrimonial Appeal No. 927 of 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY)
For the Respondents: A.PARVATHI MENON, KIRAN NARAYANAN, KOSHY ABRAHAM, MEERA R. MENON
The court ruled that the burden of proof lies with the husband to demonstrate claims regarding the wife's gold ornaments, affirming the wife's entitlement to recover 36 sovereigns misappropriated by the husband.
Headnote:(A) Family Law - Matrimonial disputes - Claims for return of gold ornaments and money - The Family Court granted recovery of 41 sovereigns of gold ornaments and directed the return of a teakwood almirah, but declined the monetary claim - The appeals arise from this judgment. (Paras 2, 6, 21)
(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - The court held that the wife was likely to have worn some gold ornaments during her departure for delivery, ruling that 36 sovereigns were misappropriated by the husband - The husband failed to prove the wife's claims of monetary transfers. (Paras 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The wife claimed recovery of gold ornaments and money given to the husband as patrimony, alleging misappropriation. The husband denied these claims and counter-alleged cruelty. The Family Court ruled in favor of the wife for the ornaments but not for the money.
Findings of Court:
The court found the wife's claims for gold credible, awarding her 36 sovereigns, but upheld the Family Court's denial of monetary claims due to lack of evidence.
Issues: The main issues were whether the wife was entitled to recover the gold ornaments and money, and the credibility of the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the husband to demonstrate the wife's claims of taking the ornaments, and upheld the Family Court's findings based on the evidence presented.
Result: Mat. Appeal No. 307 of 2014 is partly allowed; Mat. Appeal No. 927 of 2014 is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 11th day of April, 2025)
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J Mat.Appeal No.307 of 2014 is filed by the husband and his father and Mat. Appeal No.927 of 2014 is filed by the wife. Both the appeals arise from the judgment dated 04.01.2014 in O.P.No.1296 of 2006 on the file of the Family Court, Ernakulam.
2. The original petition was filed by the wife claiming 41 sovereigns of gold ornaments, ₹6,00,000/- as patrimony and other household articles, given to the husband. The Family Court had granted a decree permitting the wife to recover 41 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its present market value from the husband, and also directed to handover the teakwood almirah to the wife, but declined the prayer for money and other household articles. Aggrieved by the judgment, the husband and the wife have come up with the respective appeals.
6
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’.
4. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 04.05.2002 and a girl child was born in their wedlock on 01.04.2003. According to the wife, on 06.04.2002, the respondents, who are the husband and the father-in-law were entrusted with ₹5 lakhs as patrimony; and 41 sovereigns of gold ornaments on the date of marriage. She also claimed that a teakwood almirah worth ₹25,000/-; a fridge worth ₹16,000/- and a mixie worth ₹3,000/- were also given to the husband. She further contended that on 09.03.2003, when she was taken to her parental home for delivery, she had entrusted her gold ornaments with the respondents for safe custody. However, the husband sold the gold ornaments and misappropriated the sale proceeds. She alleged that she was treated with cruelty, both mentally and physically, demanding more dowry. Even after the birth of the child, the respondents prevented the wife from coming back to the matrimonial home stating that the
7 first respondent’s brother, who is ailing from mental illness, was at home. Thereafter, due to the intervention of the relatives, she was allowed to return to the matrimonial home in January 2006. However, this reconciliation was conditional upon her paying the husband ₹1 lakh. Despite this, she endured cruel treatment from her husband during her stay from January 2006 to August 2006. Her father-in-law made a complaint against her to the Sub Inspector, Erattupetta Police Station and further filed O.S.No.58 of 2006 before the Munsiff Court, Erattupetta and obtained injunction restraining her from entering into the matrimonial home. She was sent to her parental home in August 2006. Hence the wife filed original petition claiming return of gold ornaments, money and household articles.
5. The husband denied the receipt of ₹5 lakhs as patrimony. According to him, the wife’s father had given ₹3 lakhs as patrimony; and both parties decided to purchase gold ornaments with the afore amount. 41
8 sovereigns of gold ornaments were purchased for the wife and she wore the entire ornaments at the time of marriage. The husband alleged that the entire gold ornaments were in her custody. He also contends that while she returned to her parental home on 09.03.2003 for delivery, she had taken all the gold ornaments with her. The entrustment of the gold ornaments to the husband and his father is also denied. He had also denied the receipt of fridge and mixie. He admits that a teakwood almirah which was given to the wife is still in the matrimonial home and he is ready to return the same at any time. He also contends that the wife treated the husband with cruelty and she used to give complaints to the police alleging cruelty against his family members. He also denied the receipt of ₹1 lakh on 09.01.2006, on account of reconciliation. He contended that during the early days of marriage, she was always quarrelsome by putting his family members and relatives in mental agony, stress, and strain. She always threatened them by saying that she will commit suicide and
9 she used to sit idle in the room and used to
