Ownership and return of marital property must be substantiated by clear evidence; misappropriation claims require specific proof.

Sathish Ninan, J.

The original petition filed by the wife against the husband seeking return of gold ornaments, was decreed in part. The husband is in appeal. The wife has filed a cross objection claiming value of gold at the time of its payment/realisation.

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 06.05.2001. According to the wife, at the time of marriage she was provided with 21 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The husband obtained the gold ornaments from her on various occasions and pledged it. The ornaments were not returned. The parties fell apart and are residing separately since the year 2014. The original petition was filed seeking return of the gold ornaments.

3. The husband denied that the wife had 21 sovereigns of gold ornaments. He also denied of having pledged any of the ornaments of the wife. It was contended that the wife herself had pledged a few of her ornaments and that the balance ornaments are with her.

4. The Family Court granted a decree for recovery of 15½ sovereigns or its value, which the court fixed at ₹ 22,000/- per sovereign.

5. We have heard learned counsel on either side.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant-husband would contend that there is no evidence to find that the wife had 21 sovereigns with her at the time of marriage. So also there is no evidence to find that the husband had misappropriated the same. The pledge of the gold ornaments was by the wife herself and the husband cannot be made responsible for the same. He further relied on various judgments of this Court inMuneera v. Mariyumma 2024 KHC 7303, Abubakker Labba and Another v. Shameena K. B. and Another 2018 (3) KHC 219 , Mohandas v. Sunitha Mohandas 2024 (7) KHC 273 , Bindhu K.S. v. Rejimon T.B. 2024 KHC 1181 to contend that there must be specific plea and proof with regard to the entrustment of gold ornaments. He also argued that the non-examination of the relatives of the wife who allegedly gifted the ornaments to her is fatal. 7. Ext.A1 and Ext.A1(b) are the photograph taken in connection with the marriage. Exts.X1 and X2 are documents relating to the pledge of ornaments with the Chovva Cooperative Rural Bank Ltd. On a comparison of the list of ornaments, it is evident that they are substantially the same. The above, coupled with the oral evidence of the petitioner as PW1, leaves no room for doubt that at the time of marriage she had the gold ornaments as claimed by her. The non-examination of the witnesses who had gifted the petitioner the ornaments is, on the evidence on record, inconsequential.

8. Now coming to the plea of misappropriation of the gold ornaments, Exts.A4 and A4(a) are the letters sent by the husband to the wife while he was working abroad. The relevant statements therein have been adverted to by the Family Court in its judgment. For the sake of completeness the same are extracted hereunder :-

The issuance of Exts.A4 and A4(a) the letters and their genuineness are not in dispute. The letters unambiguously reveal that the ornaments belonging to the wife were pledged by the husband. The statements further reveal that the husband had required the wife to change the name of the loan account to the name of the wife. The documents produced from the Bank shows that initially the gold loan was in the name of the husband which was later transferred to the name of the wife. This is in tune with the contents of Ext.A4 letter.

9. The Family Court has noted that the wife had availed gold loans from other institutions also. There is no case for the husband that the wife was in requirement of any money for her personal use during the subsistence of the marital tie necessitating availing of any loan by her. No such circumstances are pointed out or even suggested. Here it is relevant to note that, as RW1, the case of the husband is that he has not pledged any ornaments. He deposed thus :-

“പണയുᨱ ടവച സ്ᩭർ്ᩆവാഭരണങൾ ഹരജനിക