The burden of proof lies on the petitioner to substantiate claims regarding financial contributions, which he failed to do.

JUDGMENT

Sathish Ninan, J.

The husband is in appeal challenging the dismissal of his original petition filed against the wife for recovery of money.

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 20.05.1999. The parties fell apart and their marriage was dissolved upon the joint petition filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, as O.P.No.1483 of 2009.

3. The claim in the present original petition is for an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from the wife under two heads; (i) An amount of Rs.3,00,000/- spent for the purchase of 7 cents of property described in the A schedule to the petition; (ii) An amount of Rs.9,00,000/- expended by the petitioner for the construction of house in the property.

4. The respondent-wife denied the claims in the original petition. It was contended that the property was purchased in her name by her father utilising amounts of the father and her brother. It was also contended that the house was constructed by her with the funds obtained by sale of mother’s property and by availing a loan. It was contended that no amount was expended by the petitioner.

5. The Family Court, on appreciation of the evidence, held that there is no evidence to substantiate the claims of the petitioner. Accordingly, the original petition was dismissed.

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

7. At the very outset it is noticed that, though it is the claim of the husband that the property was purchased and building constructed by him, there is no prayer for declaration of his title over the property and the building. The claim is only for money. Admittedly, the property was purchased in the name of the respondent. Ext.A1 is the Sale Deed. Ext.A1 recites the receipt of sale consideration from the respondent. Though the petitioner claims that the purchase was utilising his funds, there is no evidence in the said regard. The source of funds has not been produced.

8. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent that the property was purchased utilising the funds provided by her father and brother. PW2 is the father of the respondent. He has deposed that he was the supervisor in Travancore Titanium Products Ltd., and that he retired on 31.05.2004. He has further deposed that he provided funds for the purchase of the property from his terminal benefits. As PW1 the respondent has deposed that the sale was preceded by an agreement for sale between the vendor and her father. The agreement has been produced as Ext.A17. The said document fortifies the contention of the respondent.

9. Though the petitioner claims that he had entrusted money to the respondent and her father for the purchase of property, there is absolutely no evidence regarding the same. No specific reason is suggested as to why the property was purchased in the exclusive name of the respondent even when the petitioner claims to have provided funds for its purchase. The petitioner’s case is that during the relevant time he was working at Kollam and hence he was unable to be present for the transaction; the respondent and her father got the sale deed taken in her name. We find the explanation to be far from satisfactory and difficult to be accepted. Be that as it may, suffice to notice that there is total lack of evidence from the side of the petitioner to prove that he had provided funds for the purchase of the property. On the contrary, the evidence of the respondent is found to be reliable and acceptable.

10. With regard to the construction of the building, the petitioner claims that he had expended Rs. 14 lakhs. To substantiate the same, he relies on Ext.B5 receipts (4 in numbers) issued by one “Top Way Constructions”. Ext.B4 is a letter styled as completion certificate issue