Claims for recovery of assets in marital disputes must be supported by clear evidence; vague allegations do not suffice.

J U D G M E N T

Antony Dominic, J.

These appeals are filed by the parties to OP No.766/04 on the file of Family Court, Thiruvalla. OP No.766/2004 was filed by the appellant in MA No.729/07, the wife, claiming recovery of an amount of `8,60,000/- towards the value of gold ornaments and money paid to the appellants in MA No.707/07, the husband and his father.

2. Before the Family Court, respondents in the OP raised a counter claim for return of `1,60,000/-. The Family Court by the impugned judgment negatived the monetary claim of the wife as also the counter claim of the husband and his father and upheld the wife's claim for return of the value of 90 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It is this judgment which is under appeal by both sides.

3. The marriage between the couple was solemnized on

20/1/2002 in accordance with the customary rites and in the wedlock, a male child was born on 2/12/2002. According to the wife/petitioner, during negotiations for the marriage, her father had given an amount of `1,00,000/- to the 1st respondent in the OP and at the time of marriage, she was also given gold ornaments weighing 101 sovereigns. It is also stated that an assurance to give 1 acre of property was also given. Her case was that in the guise of keeping the gold ornaments in a bank locker, the ornaments were obtained from her and were misappropriated. She also alleged that `1,00,000/- given was also misappropriated and that subsequently for starting a new business, another sum of `1,00,000/- was collected from her father. In addition, she also stated that she had gifts worth `45,000/- presented to her which was entrusted to the respondents in the OP. Further, she also claimed that articles worth `25,000/- were also misappropriated. She also contended that after the birth of the child, 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given and that these were also misappropriated.

4. According to her, on 25/12/2003, the husband left her at her parental home demanding more money and ornaments. It is stated that there were several mediation efforts and finally on 14/4/2004, she was brutally assaulted by her husband demanding more money. She also stated that thereafter she was not looked after by the husband. It is in these circumstances, she laid the claim for return of `8,60,000/-.

5. In the written statement filed, the entire claim raised by the wife for ornaments and money were denied by the husband and his father. According to them, whatever ornaments she had were taken by her at the time when she voluntarily left the matrimonial home. The husband also raised a counter claim for `1,60,000/- to be recovered from the wife. This consisted of thali chain of 6 sovereigns and wedding ring of 1 sovereign, apart from `1,00,000/- allegedly taken away by her. The counter claim was denied by the wife by filing an objection to the counter claim.

6. The following points were raised by the Family Court:-

“1. Whether the respondents collected `2,80,000/-

in cash from the parents of the petitioner as alleged?

2. Whether the respondents have appropriated any of the ornaments belonging to the petitioner, and if so, what is the quantity of gold so appropriated and liable to be returned?

3. Whether the 1st respondent is entitled to any amount by way of counter claim?

4. Reliefs and cost.”

7. Before the Family Court, PWs 1 to 5 and Rws 1 to 4 were examined. Exts.A1 to A4, B1 and B2 and C1 were also marked.

8. The first issue considered and negatived by the Family Court was the monetary claim of `2,80,000/- raised by the wife. Among `2,80,000/- claimed by the wife, the first claim was in respect of `1,00,000/- allegedly paid to the husband at the time when the marriage was negotiated. Evidence and pleadings before the Family Court show that the date of payment was not mentioned anywhere in the petition. There was also no averment as to who paid the amount and who has actually received the alleged payment.

9. In so far as the second claim for `1,00,000/- allegedly paid to the husband f