The burden of proof lies on the husband to demonstrate the handling of gold ornaments retained by the wife, particularly in cases of misappropriation claims.

1. Challenging the decree dated 17.12.2015 in OP No.196 of 2013 of the Family Court, Pala, dismissing the claim of the wife for return of 41.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments, an amount of Rs.50,000/- and movables worth Rs.44,100/-, the wife has come up in appeal.

2. The marriage between the appellant / wife and the first respondent / husband was solemnized on 08.02.2006 and a child was born in their wedlock. According to the appellant, when the marriage was fixed, the respondents were given Rs.50,000/- as patrimony. It was claimed that on the date of marriage, she was wearing 43 sovereigns of gold ornaments, and further, her father had gifted to the first respondent a gold chain weighing 3 sovereigns and a ring weighing one sovereign. It was further claimed that in the matrimonial home, the third respondent / mother of the first respondent kept 37.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments in her custody. It was alleged that the appellant was subjected to cruelty by the respondents and she was deserted on 25.09.2009. Thereafter, the appellant demanded return of gold ornaments, money and the value of movables.

3. The first respondent / husband contended that the appellant was wearing only 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments and the amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited in her name, which was subsequently withdrawn for her educational purpose. It was further contended that he had not treated her with cruelty and had not taken her gold ornaments. The Family Court, after elaborate consideration of the issue, dismissed the original petition filed by the wife.

4. We have heard Sri. Pirappancode V. S. Sudheer, learned counsel for the appellant; and Smt. R. Bindu (Sasthamangalam), learned counsel for the respondents.

5. The following issue arises for consideration:
Whether the Family Court rightly dismissed the claim for return of gold ornaments, money and value of movables?

6. As regards the claim for return of gold ornaments, the appellant, who was examined as PW1, deposed that the respondents misappropriated her gold ornaments. In paragraph 9 of the original petition, the appellant had stated that she had entrusted 37.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the third respondent as a trustee. The appellant further stated that she had retained two bangles, weighing one sovereign each, out of the 43 sovereigns of gold ornaments she had. She relied on Ext.X1 Marriage Certificate and Ext.A2 photos to prove that she was wearing 43 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. On a perusal of Ext.X1 marriage certificate, it is seen that the appellant was given 344 grams equivalent to 43 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. The appellant, while examined as PW1, has deposed that though the gold ornaments were entrusted to the third respondent, the same were not returned to her. The father of the appellant, who was examined as PW3, had testified that 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to his daughter at the time of marriage and when she came back, she had brought only the 'Thali' chain, two bangles and a pair of studs. Though the appellant had stated that the gold ornaments were entrusted to the third respondent, there was no proper explanation as to the misappropriation of gold ornaments by the respondents. The Family Court rejected the claim for return of gold ornaments only on the basis that, other than the version of the appellant that the respondents have misappropriated the gold ornaments, there were no other materials to support her case.

7. The parties were living together after the marriage. As held by this Court in Pankajakshan Nair v. Shylaja & Ors. [ 2017 (1) KHC 620 ], when the husband and wife live together, it is only probable that the valuables of the wife will be entrusted to the husband for safe cust