Entrustment of gold in matrimonial disputes must be proven by cogent evidence, not merely assumed based on ownership.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellant challenges the judgment and decree of the learned Family Court, Mavelikkara, in O.P.(Others) No.1015/2019.

2. The appellant filed the afore Original Petition, seeking return of her 90 sovereigns of gold or its value from the respondent which, she asserts, had been entrusted to him after their marriage in the year 2010. The learned Family Court, however, dismissed the Original Petition, concluding that there had been no entrustment of gold by the appellant to the respondent, as asserted by her. The appellant challenges this.

3. Sri.K.P.Sreekumar – learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the evidence of RW1 – namely, the respondent – establishes irresistibly that he had taken control of the entire gold ornaments and that the same was in his possession; which he sold subsequently, as has been imputed by his client. He argued that, when the answers of RW1 to certain specific questions travel clearly to the extent that he had taken the gold ornaments from his client, the findings of the learned Family Court can never be sustained. He prayed that this Appeal be hence allowed.

4. Sri.R.Harikrishnan – learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that, not only has his client, as RW1, not made any confession; but has stuck to his constant position that he was not aware how much of gold had been brought by the appellant into the matrimony, and that he was never entrusted with it at any point of time. He argued that, when such a stand has been established through evidence, there cannot be any insinuation against his client that he had sold away or misappropriated the gold for his purposes. He argued that, therefore, this Appeal is an attempt at experimentation; and prayed that it be dismissed.

5. We notice that the Original Petition was taken to trial by the learned Family Court; and the oral testimony of the appellant was recorded as PW1, along with four other witnesses on her side, namely PW2 to PW5. The respondent herein examined himself as RW1 and got two witnesses, namely RW2 and RW3 to speak for him. In addition, the appellant produced Exts.A1 to A3 series of documents in her favour; while Exts.B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the respondent.

6. The specific case of the appellant is that she had brought

90 sovereigns of gold into matrimony and that it was entrusted to the respondent nearly one month after their marriage, which was solemnized on 23.05.2010. She, however, conceded that she was not aware of the exact date of such entrustment; and proceeded to say that the respondent was acting under the influence of alcohol most of the time, thus treating her with cruelty.

7. At this juncture, we must record that the Original Petition concerned was heard along with O.P.(HMA) No.1014/2019, filed by the appellant seeking divorce, which was also dismissed. We are told that this judgment has been reversed by this Court in an Appeal. We have made this record at this time only because, the evidence on file comprises those which were relevant to both cases; and obviously, therefore, we will confine our consideration to only those which are exclusively relevant to the matter at hand.

8. As indicated above, the assertions of the appellant were controverted by the respondent saying that, though he knew that she had brought some gold, he was not aware of its attributes; and that he had not been entrusted with any of it, nor had he misappropriated the same. It is thus a case where the assertions of the appellant were met with contra-assertions of the respondent. 9. Ineluctably, therefore, this Court will have to verify whether