The court upheld the wife's entitlement to recover gold ornaments and maintenance, while modifying the quantity recoverable based on evidence.

JUDGMENT

P.Krishna Kumar.J

The wife filed a petition against her husband for the recovery of gold ornaments, money, and household articles allegedly entrusted to him. She also sought maintenance for herself and her daughter under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These two cases were disposed of by the Family Court along with a petition filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights, through the impugned common order. The Family Court partly allowed the claim for recovery of gold ornaments and also awarded maintenance to the wife and her daughter. The husband has challenged the findings of the Family Court by filing the above appeals. Though the claim for restitution was rejected, there is no appeal against that finding.

2. According to the wife, she received 125 sovereigns of gold ornaments from her parents at the time of her marriage, which were entrusted to the husband soon thereafter. On the date of the marriage, her parents also handed over an amount of ₹1,00,000/- to the husband. The husband later misappropriated the gold ornaments and the money. He also neglected to maintain her and their daughter. Accordingly, the wife claimed that the husband should be directed to pay maintenance at the rate of ₹10,000/- per month to her and ₹5,000/- per month to their daughter. She further stated that the husband is engaged in stationery and real estate businesses and earns at least ₹85,000/- per month.

3. The appellant, the husband, denied the above allegations. According to him, the wife possessed only 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments. He also denied the alleged entrustment of ₹1,00,000/-. Objecting to the claim for maintenance, the appellant further contended that he is employed as a helper in a shop owned by his father and that, due to injuries sustained in a motor accident, he is unable to attend work regularly.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent, the wife.

5. Though the wife sought recovery of 125 sovereigns of gold ornaments, the trial court allowed recovery of only 50 sovereigns, based on the admission made by the husband that she possessed 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the evidence adduced by the wife is wholly insufficient to establish that the said gold ornaments were entrusted to the husband or that he had misappropriated them.

6. In order to answer the question whether the wife is entitled to recover 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments, we have carefully examined the evidence adduced by both sides. In her proof affidavit, the wife narrated specific details of the gold ornaments worn by her at the time of marriage and further reiterated the case advanced by her in the original petition. According to the wife, on 12.03.2006, the husband took possession of all her gold ornaments except for one chain, a pair of earrings, and two bangles, together weighing approximately two sovereigns. The trial court did not accept the case of the wife that she had 125 sovereigns of gold. However, it was found that the husband is liable to return 50 sovereigns of gold. Though she was thoroughly cross-examined by the learned counsel appearing for the husband, her version regarding the entrustment of the gold ornaments remained unshaken. In his written objection, the husband initially contended that the wife possessed only 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments. However, during his testimony at trial, he admitted that she had 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments. In these circumstances, we find no reason to disbelieve the respondent’s version that some of the gold