Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 50216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sathish Ninan, P. Krishna Kumar, JJ
PRASANTH KUMAR N.G. – Appellant
Versus
VIDYA V. NAIR – Respondent
Mat.Appeal No. 540 of 2018 | OP NO.1255 OF 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.PRASANTH, K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL, V.A.HARITHA, JEEVAN RAJEEV, MARY RESHMA GEORGE, R.NANDAGOPAL, SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL
For the Respondents: ARYA RAGHUNATH, SAJITH KUMAR V.
The court upheld the modified claim for gold ornaments based on corroborative evidence while discrediting claims of misappropriation raised by the husband.
Headnote:(A) Family Law - Ownership of Marital Assets and Trust - The respondent's claim for the return of gold ornaments and movable articles is examined in light of evidence including bills from jewellers and witness testimonies. The court finds that the appellants misappropriated the ornaments and modifies the amount to be returned. (Paras 2, 4, 6, 7, 8)
(B) Burden of Proof - The burden of establishing ownership lies on the respondent, who provided substantial documentary and oral evidence. The court affirms the trial court’s evaluations as it observed the demeanor of witnesses.
Facts of the case:
The wife claims her ornaments were entrusted to the husband, who allegedly misappropriated them. The husband contests the amount and ownership of the ornaments.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's order for 39 ½ sovereigns was reduced to 33 ½ sovereigns with the claim for Rs.20,000 set aside, but other decrees upheld.
Issues: The primary questions revolved around the authenticity of the claims regarding the value and existence of gold ornaments and other articles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that photographic and documentary evidence supported the wife's claim while discrediting the appellants' assertions about the ownership and amount of gold ornaments through lack of credible evidence. The appeal was partly allowed to reflect the findings of misappropriation but adjusted the amount based on evidence presented.
Result: The appeal is allowed in part, and the decree is modified.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for return of gold ornaments based on alleged misappropriation. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. evidence supports the wife's claim against the husband's denial. (Para 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. modification of earlier decree aligns with the findings of misappropriation. (Para 5 , 8) |
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
The husband and his relatives challenge the decree passed by the Family Court, Kottayam, in favour of the wife for the return of 39 ½ sovereigns of gold ornaments and certain other movable articles, along with Rs.20,000/-. 2. The marriage was solemnised on 27.10.2011. The wife contended that, at the time of her marriage, she was given 36 ½ sovereigns of gold ornaments as her family share. Additionally, 3 sovereigns of gold ornaments were gifted to the first appellant by the respondent’s parents. It is her case that soon after the marriage, she went to Mali for employment and, at that time, entrusted her gold ornaments to the first appellant in trust. The respondent alleges that the entire ornaments were misappropriated by the appellants. She therefore sought recovery of the gold ornaments and other articles entrusted to them at the time of marriage, together with reimbursement of the amount allegedly spent by her for taking the first appellant also to Mali.
3. The appellants denied these allegations. According to them, the wife had only 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage, she had also adorned few additional rolled gold ornaments, and that the entire ornaments are still in her possession. They further contended that it was the husband who bore the expenses for sending the respondent to Mali. The respondent had borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- to discharge her debts. The first appellant gave the thali chain weighing 5 sovereigns, the thali itself weighing 2 grams, and a ring weighing ½ sovereign to the respondent, which she retained. Accordingly, they filed a counterclaim for recovery of the above items along with the amount allegedly given by them to the respondent.
4. The respondent examined PW1 to PW8 and produced Exts.A1 to A13 in support of her case. The appellants examined RW1 and produced Exts.B1 to B3. Exts.X1 and X2 were also marked in evidence. By the impugned judgment, the trial court directed the appellants to return 39 ½ sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.20,000/- with 6% interest. The court also directed return of a refrigerator and certain other movable articles. The counterclaim was partly allowed by directing the respondent to return the thali and the ring.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides.
6. To prove that she was adorned with the gold ornaments as claimed, the respondent produced Ext.A9 series and Ext.A12 bill issued by Kalyan Jewellers. She also examined PW5, the Manager of Kalyan Jewellers, in support of her claim. The said bill accounts for 32 ¾ sovereigns of gold ornaments. Ext.A11, a photograph taken at the time of marriage, also shows that the respondent was adorned with a substantial quantity of gold ornaments. Though the appellants contended that she had only 20 sovereigns of gold and that the rest were merely rolled gold, the above evidence, coupled with the oral testimony of PW1 and PW2, clearly discredits that contention.
7. Moreover, the appellants admitted in their counter that they had pledged 10 sovereigns of gold belonging to the respondent. Additionally, when it was specifically pleaded by the respondent that 26 sovereigns of her ornaments were pledged by the appellants at SBT, Kidangoor Branch, and the Kidangoor Co-operative Bank for their purposes, it was stoutly denied by the appellants. However, Exts.X1 and X2 establish that the second appellant, the mother of the first appellant, pledged gold ornaments at those institutions and obtained a substantial amount. Significantly, the appellants offered no explanation in their counter regarding this pledge in the name of the second appellant. All these circumstances clearly establish that the appellants misappropriated
