The evidence must substantiate claims, and speculative statements lack credibility in legal determinations.

Devan Ramachandran,J.

The appellant calls into question the correctness of the judgment of the learned Family Court, Tirur, in O.P.No.199/2016.

2. The afore Original Petition was filed by the respondent herein, seeking return of 64.25 sovereigns of gold – 57 sovereigns is stated to be in the form of gold ornaments and the balance is 10 gold coins of one sovereign each. The learned Family Court allowed the Original Petition, directing the appellant herein to pay an amount of Rs.20,38,267/-, being the value of the gold ornaments; along with Rs.2,00,000/-, which it found to be her patrimony, along with 4% interest from the date of the petition.

3. Sri.Santharam P. - learned Counsel for the appellant, argued that the learned Family Court has entered into conclusions without any corroborative evidence, based merely on speculations and conjectures. He contended that the learned Family Court has omitted to note that there are several inconsistencies in the pleadings and testimony of the respondent herein, as PW1; but that all this has been disregarded, to issue the decree as presently ordered. He prayed that, therefore, this appeal be allowed.

4. In refutation, Sri. Jamsheed Hafiz – learned Counsel for the respondent, submitted that there are no inconsistencies in the pleadings or testimony of his client, as has been asserted by Sri.Santharam P.; and that she has consistently stuck to the position that her gold had been misappropriated by the respondent, when she went to attend a coaching class at Thrissur. He explained that his client left her matrimonial home after about three weeks of marriage, entrusting the gold and ornaments to her mother- in-law, who is now no more (she was arrayed as the 2^nd respondent originally); and that she did not see it anytime thereafter. He conceded that his client subsequently attended classes at Pariyaram; but that she obtained no access to the gold ornaments, if it being within the possession of the appellant and his mother, as already said above.

5. Sri. Jamsheed Hafiz further argued that, when the appellant, as RW1, expressly conceded that the ornaments and gold were kept in a shelf in the matrimonial home (his home, which he shared with his mother); and that the key of the same was handed over to the respondent, it becomes manifestly clear that it was available at the said place; and hence, that it was only if he had been able to prove that his client had taken away the same later, could there be any case against him. He concluded arguing that the malice exhibited by the appellant to avoid the return of the gold and ornaments in his possession becomes luculent from the fact that, he first said that some of the said sovereigns are “imitations” or “spurious”; then changing this position to say that all of them were taken away by her and deposited in a Bank locker belonging to her mother; and finally admitting that the gold ornaments were in the matrimonial home, but asserting to be in her possession since the key of the shelf in which it was kept was with her. He argued that, therefore, this appeal is an abuse of process, and prayed that it be dismissed.

6. The evidence on record is common to four cases that were decided by the learned Family Court together, including the one we are presently concerned with. Since the depositions and the documents relate to all the claims in such proceedings, we have gone through the same and have identified that portions / documents, which are relevant for our consideration in this matter.

7. That said, we notice that the evidence on record comprises of the oral testimony of the respondent as PW1 and another witness on her side as PW2; while the appellant offered testimony as RW1. In addition, the respondent marked and produced Exts.A1 to