Evidence is evaluated under the principle of preponderance of probability in claims for return of misappropriated items.

JUDGMENT

M.B.Snehalatha.J Appellants are the petitioners in O.P.No.643/2016 of Family Court, Irinjalakuda. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned Family Court declined the relief of return of gold and patrimony and also disallowed her claim for past maintenance. Past maintenance for the child alone was granted.

2. Parties shall be referred to by their rank in the Original Petition.

3. The marriage of the 1^st petitioner with the 1^st respondent was solemnised on 4.5.2014 as per Muslim religious rites. 2nd petitioner is the child born to them in the said wedlock. At the time of marriage, 1^st petitioner was given 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments . Subsequent to the marriage as demanded by the respondents, an amount of Rs.3 lakhs was given by her parents. After the birth of the child, her parents had given 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the child. Respondents misappropriated the entire 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments and patrimony of ₹3 lakhs entrusted with them and utilised it for their own purposes. They ill-treated and tortured the 1^st petitioner physically and mentally, demanding dowry. On 30.5.2016, respondents driven her out from the matrimonial home and thereafter she is residing at her parental home along with the child. Respondents are liable to return the 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments misappropriated by them, described as petition A schedule. Petition B schedule articles are the household appliances given to the 1^st petitioner by her parents. Respondents are liable to return the said articles also. R1 has not looked after the affairs of the petitioners from 11.4.2015 onwards and therefore he is liable to pay past maintenance at the rate of ₹10,000/- per month for the 1^st petitioner and ₹7,000/- per month for the 2nd petitioner.

4. Respondents filed counter admitting the marriage but denying the allegations of misappropriation of gold ornaments and patrimony and also the entrustment of any gold ornaments with them. It was also contended that the parents of the 1st petitioner had no financial capacity to give 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹3 lakhs as contended by the 1^st petitioner. Likewise, her case is that the child was given 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments from her house is also untrue. No household appliances were brought by her to the matrimonial home as alleged. The allegations of harassment and torture levelled against the respondents are also denied.

5. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned Family Court declined the claim for return of gold ornaments, cash and B schedule movables. Past maintenance sought by the 1^st petitioner was also disallowed. A decree for past maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to the 2^nd petitioner (minor child) for the period from 1.6.2016 till 8.8.2016 alone was granted.

6. Aggrieved by the declinement of the reliefs sought in the petition, petitioners have preferred this appeal contending that the Family Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective ; that the Family Court went wrong in holding that there was no entrustment of gold ornaments and money to the respondents; that the Family Court went wrong in its finding that the 1^st petitioner left the matrimonial home without any valid reason.

7. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants that it was unreasonable for the Family Court to insist for documentary evidence regarding entrustment of gold and cash to the respondents and the Family Court went wrong in holding that the 1^st petitioner failed to prove the entrustment of gold ornaments and money to the respondents and the misappropriation of gold and cash by the respondent.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the findin