In matrimonial disputes, the burden of proof for the return of property lies initially with the claimant, requiring evidence of entrustment to substantiate claims.

JUDGMENT

M.B.Snehalatha.J In this appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and decree in O.P.No.349/2011 of Family Court, Malappuram which declined the 1^st appellant's claim for return of gold ornaments and past maintenance from the respondents.

2. Parties in this appeal shall be referred to by their rank in O.P.No.349/2011.

3. Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:

The marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent who are Muslims was contracted on 30.9.2001 and she was taken to the matrimonial home on 21.7.2002. Second petitioner is the child born to them in the said wedlock. Second respondent is the mother of 1^st respondent. At the time of fixing the marriage, the father of the 1^st respondent had made a demand for 200 sovereigns of gold ornaments. 1^st petitioner’s father had given 150 sovereigns of gold ornaments to her at the time of marriage. After the marriage, 1^st respondent and his father got it weighed and thereafter they complained that the total weight of the gold ornaments was only 147 sovereigns as against their demand for 200 sovereigns and they demanded 53 sovereigns more. Pursuant to the said demand, in September 2002, petitioner’s father again gave 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments to her. Respondents harassed the petitioner for not bringing a car as dowry. At the time when the 1^st petitioner had gone to her parental home for delivery, her entire gold ornaments were in the possession of the 2^nd respondent who is the mother of 1^st respondent. Respondents misappropriated the entire gold ornaments of the 1^st petitioner and utilised it for expanding their business namely the medical shop and the optical shop run by them. 1^st petitioner is entitled to get back her 203 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its present market value from the respondents. Respondents are also liable to return ₹7 lakhs spent by the father of the petitioner for doing the interior works of the new house constructed by R1 and for purchasing the household appliances for the said house. 1^st respondent has not maintained the petitioners from 23.3.2010 onwards and therefore petitioners are entitled to get maintenance at the rate of ₹10,000/- each per month from 23.3.2010 to 22.3.2011.

4. Respondent resisted the petition and refuted the allegations contending that they have not taken any gold ornaments of the 1^st petitioner. There was no demand for gold as alleged. The allegation that the 1^st petitioner was given 150 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage and the allegation that respondents weighed her gold ornaments and demanded more gold ornaments etc. are false. 1^st petitioner had kept all her gold ornaments with herself and she had worn all her gold ornaments at the time when she had gone to her parental home for delivery. 2^nd respondent was not in possession of any gold ornaments of the 1^st petitioner. There was no cruelty or harassment from the part of the respondents. 1^st petitioner insisted for divorce and accordingly, the marriage was dissolved on 24.11.2010 at her instance. No amount was spent by the 1^st petitioner’s father for the interior works or towards the cost of home appliances as alleged and respondents are not liable to pay any such amount. 1^st respondent is not liable to pay any amount towards maintenance as claimed.

5. After trial, the learned Family Court disallowed the claim for the return of gold ornaments and the claim for return of ₹7 lakhs. The claim of the 1^st petitioner for past maintenance was also disallowed. The learned Family Court granted a decree for ₹60,000/- towards past maintenance to the 2^nd petitioner/child.

6. Heard the learned c