Entrustment claims in matrimonial disputes must be supported by clear evidence and consistent pleadings, prioritizing actual delivery over mere assertion.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 C.P.C.

has been filed by the plaintiff/wife against the decree and judgement dated 13/09/2002 in O.S.No.57/2000 on the file of the Subordinate Judges' Court, Thiruvalla. The respondents herein are the defendants in the suit. The parties and the documents in this appeal will be referred to as described in the suit.

2. The case in the plaint is that the marriage between the petitioner and the second defendant was solemnised on 10/04/1986 as per the rites and customs of the community to which they belong. Before marriage, the betrothal took place on 03/04/1986. On the date of the betrothal, a sum of ₹1 lakh and 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments were entrusted as patrimony to the first and the second defendants in their capacity as trustees. At the time of marriage, the second defendant was employed in the Gulf. One year after the marriage, the second defendant resigned his job and returned home. A daughter was born in the wedlock. After the second defendant returned from the Gulf, he started harassing the plaintiff both physically and mentally in order to coerce her to bring more dowry from her house. On 24/09/1991 she was thrown out of her marital home against which she preferred a complaint to the Thiruvalla police. On the intervention of the police, she returned to the matrimonial home. However, the harassment and torture by the defendants continued. Hence the plaintiff was constrained to file a complaint alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. The gold ornaments were taken away by the defendants alleging several reasons and thereafter they have been misappropriated. Hence, the suit for recovery of ₹1 lakh entrusted with the defendants and ₹1,60,000/-, as the value of 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments entrusted to the defendants as trustees.

3. The defendants entered appearance and filed written statement denying the allegations in the plaint. The defendants denied the allegation that a sum of ₹1 lakh and 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments had been entrusted to them on the date of the betrothal in their capacity as trustees. The defendants had never demanded any money or gold ornaments as plaintiffs' paternal share. On the date of the betrothal, the plaintiff's father had only paid ₹25,000/- to the defendants towards the marriage expenses. The stand of the defendants when the proposal came was that it was upto the parents of the plaintiff to give whatever they thought fit as her share. After the second defendant returned from Gulf, he had joined in the business being conducted by his brothers. He had also started separate residence in a rented house along with the plaintiff. While so, the second defendant came to know that the plaintiff had developed an illicit relationship with one Joy. On 24/09/1999 he received information that the plaintiff had eloped with Joy. When the second defendant reached home he realised that the plaintiff had taken away all her dress worth more than ₹50,000/-; gold ornaments weighing 34 sovereigns including the 19 sovereigns of gold of the second defendant and certain other valuable documents including his passport. The second defendant preferred a complaint before the JFCM-Thiruvalla regarding this aspect. Because of the illicit relationship between the plaintiff and Joy, the second defendant moved a petition before this Court for dissolution of marriage in which the plaintiff preferred a counter claim for divorce on the ground of cruelty. This Court allowed the counter claim dissolving the marriage between the two. The defendants are prepared to return the sum of ₹25,000/- paid by the plaintiffs' father towards the marriage expenses. The plaintiff was having only 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and those ornaments were taken away when she had eloped with Joy. The allegation that the defendants had misappropriated the 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments of the plaintiff is incorrect and false. The second