The court ruled that gold ornaments misappropriated by the husband must be returned to the wife, with a decree affirming her claims substantiated by credible evidence.

JUDGMENT

Sathish Ninan, J.

Mat. Appeal No.582/2016 and Mat. Appeal No.912/2016 are by the respondents and the petitioners respectively, in OP 1464/2013. The original petition was filed inter alia for recovery of gold ornaments, declaration of title, recovery of money. The O.P was decreed in part. Challenging the part of the decree against the respective parties, they are in appeal.

2. Mat. Appeal No.757/2016 is by the respondent (husband) in OP 402/2014, challenging the decree for divorce granted at the instance of the wife. Mat. Appeal No.756/2016 is filed by the petitioner-husband challenging the dismissal of his original petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

3. It is conceded before us that Mat. Appeal No.756/2016, Mat. Appeal No.757/2016, and Mat. Appeal No.912/2016 are not pursued. Therefore, we confine our discussions to Mat. Appeal No.582/2016. The reliefs claimed in OP 1464/2013 from which the Mat Appeal arises, are as under:-

(i) Recovery of 76 sovereigns of gold ornaments.

(ii) Recovery of ₹ 1 lakh entrusted as pocket money.

(iii) Recovery of ₹ 2 lakhs given for purchase of property.

(iv) Recovery of ₹ 3,10,000/- withdrawn from the Bank account of the petitioner-wife.

(v) Recovery of ₹ 5 lakhs borrowed from the petitioner's mother.

(vi) Declaration that Sale Deed No.406/2013 is a sham document.

(vii) Declaration of title of the petitioner over the property covered by document No.406/2013.

The court granted a decree for: -

(i) Return of gold ornaments.

(ii) Recovery of ₹ 1 lakh (iii) Declaring document No.406/2013 as a sham document and declaring petitioner's title over the property covered under the document.

4. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 18.08.2003. According to the petitioner, at the time of marriage her parents provided her with 80 sovereigns of gold ornaments. So also, an amount of ₹ 1 lakh was given to the first respondent- husband as pocket money. Within a week of the marriage the husband obtained 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the petitioner for wiping off his debts incurred for marriage. In July 2004 she was taken abroad along with her husband where he was employed. During the year 2005, a further quantity of 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments were utilised by the husband for purchase of a property, on the assurance that property would be purchased in the name of the petitioner. However, subsequently it was learnt that the property was purchased in the joint names of the husband and the wife.

5. In March 2010, the aforesaid property was sold for the purpose of clearing off the debts allegedly incurred by the husband in purchasing two items of immovable properties under Sale Deed Nos.367/2010 and 368/2010. The balance sale consideration available was utilised to purchase another 12 cents of property.

6. In March 2013, the husband wanted to raise ₹ 50 lakhs, for starting a business. Making the petitioner and her mother believe that a security deed is being executed for the purpose of availing loan from an individual, the petitioner was made to execute a document and the mother as a witness. It was subsequently understood that, it was a sale deed in favour of the husband's sister. The document is vitiated by misrepresentation.

On these allegations the original petition was filed.

7. The first respondent in the original petition, who is the husband, filed objection (written statement) through the second respondent, his sister, as his power of attorney holder. The allegations in the original petition were denied. It was contended that the wife had only approximately 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments at