The court affirmed the right of a wife to reclaim dowry and gifts in the context of marital disputes.

Sathish Ninan, J.

The original petition filed by the wife against the husband and in-laws, for recovery of gold and money, was decreed in part by the Family Court. The respondents are in appeal.

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on

31.01.2008. According to the petitioner, at the time of marriage she was wearing 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments. A couple of days after the marriage her parents provided her with another 119 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Subsequently, when a child was born, the mother gifted her another 10 sovereigns. Thus she had a total quantity of 164 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It is also contended that, at the time of marriage she was provided with an amount of ₹ 25 lakhs as patrimony, in addition to a foreign currency fixed deposit for ₹ 10,88,000/-. The parties fell apart. Alleging misappropriation of the gold and money, the original petition was filed seeking return of the same.

3. The respondents filed their objections. While they did not deny that the petitioner had 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage, the claim she was provided with another 119 sovereigns, was denied. The claim regarding the quantum of money that she had, was not denied. However it was contended that the 25 lakhs given was towards marriage expenses, out of which ₹ 5 lakhs is available with the first respondent. He expressed readiness to return the same. The remaining amounts were claimed to have been expended by the petitioner herself.

4. The Family Court granted a decree for 51.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments and an amount of ₹ 29,79,000/-.

5. We have heard Smt.Smitha Babu, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.B.Sainu, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents.

6. The respondents allege that the entire gold ornaments that the petitioner had, was taken back by her along with her aunt on 14.12.2013. It is not in dispute that on 09.08.2013 there was a quarrel between the husband and wife and they were living separately since then. The relationship between the parties were very strained thereafter. Therefore, if on 14.12.2013 the petitioner along with her aunt had come to the house of the respondents and taken back the entire gold ornaments definitely some acknowledgment would have been obtained. The evidence on record reveal that, after 14.12.2013, the husband had availed loans by pledging gold ornaments. In his cross-examination (page No.15) he deposed that he had never pledged the gold ornaments of his brother or his mother. Therefore, if the husband had availed loan on the pledge of gold ornaments, it is only probable that it must have been of his wife. It is not in dispute that he had availed a gold loan of ₹ 5 lakhs on 08.01.2013 by pledging about 32 sovereigns of gold ornaments. There is no evidence to find that the pledge was redeemed and the ornaments were returned to the petitioner. Further, Ext.X1, the gold loan application reveals that he had on 12.02.2014 pledged 156 grams of gold ornaments(19.5 sovereigns).

7. Though according to the husband the loans were availed for his father by pledging the ornaments of his mother, as is evidenced by Et.X2 gold loan agreement, his father was also in the habit of pledging gold ornaments and nothing prevented the father himself from pledging the ornaments and availing loan for his purpose. That apart as was noticed supra RW1 the husband in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that he never pledged any ornaments of his brothers or mother. Thus it is evident and probable that 51.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to the petitioner were pledged by the first respondent.

8. The Family Court has analysed the evidence i