In matrimonial disputes regarding property, the burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish entrustment, which must be proven with credible evidence.

JUDGMENT

M.B.Snehalatha, J

The appellant is the respondent/husband in O.P.No.494/2015 on the files of the Family Court, Attingal who suffered a judgment and decree against him for return of gold ornaments and money to the petitioner/wife therein.

2. Parties shall be referred to as petitioner and respondent as described in O.P.No.494/2015.

3. Original Petition was filed by petitioner/wife stating that her marriage with respondent was solemnised on 10.9.1981 as per Hindu religious rites and customs. At the time of marriage, respondent was employed in Bahrain. After the marriage, he took the petitioner also to Bahrain. A girl child was born in the said wedlock. Petitioner returned to her native place along with the child in the year 1985. In 1986, respondent got employment in USA and he took the petitioner and the child also to USA.

4. Petitioner filed the Original Petition before the Family Court, Attingal seeking relief of return of gold ornaments and money from the respondent. Her case is that at the time of marriage, her parents had given 116 sovereigns of gold ornaments to her. Apart from that during “Nallavathil” ceremony, her relatives had given two sovereigns of gold ornaments each to the mother and sister of the respondent. Her case is that within one week of her marriage, respondent/husband took all her 116 sovereigns of gold ornaments and misappropriated the same. Respondent took 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments and handed it over to his sister and the remaining gold ornaments were sold by him for settling his financial liabilities. Respondent is liable to return the 116 sovereigns of gold ornaments taken from the petitioner as well as the 4 sovereigns of gold ornaments given to the mother and sister of the respondent. An amount of ₹75,000/-was also claimed towards the value of gift articles which the petitioner had received at the time of the marriage from her relatives and friends. Respondent is an alcoholic and he used to harass the petitioner physically and mentally and due to the marital discord, they are residing separately in USA from 2013 onwards. Petitioner is running a dance school in USA. Respondent purchased 25 cents of property in Varkala in his name by utilising the funds given by her.

5. Respondent filed counter denying the allegations regarding misappropriation of 116 sovereigns of gold ornaments and gifts worth ₹75,000/-. The allegation that 4 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to his mother and sister was also denied by him. The respondent has neither taken 45 sovereigns of gold of the petitioner to give it to his sister as alleged nor sold any gold ornaments of the petitioner for clearing the liabilities as alleged. The respondent had no occasion or purpose to misappropriate the gold ornaments as he was decently employed in Bahrain at the time of marriage. Respondent had no financial liabilities as alleged. The allegation regarding harassment is also denied by him. He has further contended that petitioner obtained a decree of divorce on 13.03.1989 from the matrimonial part of Supreme Court of State of New York and married a foreigner and she has a child in the said wedlock. Petitioner has approached the court by suppressing the material facts.

6. The evidence consists of the oral testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 and RW1 and the documents marked as Exts.A1 to A5 and Exts.B1 to B4.

7. After trial, the learned Family Court allowed the petition directing the respondent to return 120 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its market value of ₹24,33,600/- and to pay ₹75,000/- towards the value of gift articles obtained at the time of her marriage. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the respondent/husband has preferred this appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for both sides.

9. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the impugned judgment and decree directing the respondent/husband to return 120 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its market value of ₹24,33,600/- and to pay ₹75,000/- towards the value of gi