The court emphasizes the importance of corroborative evidence in family law disputes, particularly regarding the burden of proof concerning asset entrustment.

Devan Ramachandran,J.

The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Family Court, Kottarakkara, in O.P.No.604/2006 - which was instituted by the respondent, his former wife, seeking return of her gold ornaments and patrimony from him, which she alleges had been entrusted to him.

2. Sri.D.Kishore - appearing for the appellant, argued that, when the evidence on record is conspicuously silent on the allegation of the respondent that she had entrusted 46.79 sovereigns of gold ornaments to his client or to his father - namely DW1, it was impermissible for the learned Court to have issued the impugned judgment and decree. He then argued that, when the respondent did not enter the box, but got only her power of attorney holder to depose as PW1, the worth of such evidence ought to have been very carefully evaluated by the learned Family Court, rather than having accepted it without corroboration. He prayed that, consequently, this appeal be allowed.

3. In response, the learned Counsel for the respondent –

Sri.K.Shaj, submitted that, not only has the evidence on record established that his client had brought 46.79 sovereigns of gold into matrimony, its entrustment to the appellant by her remains without being controverted by him, since he chose not to testify. He pointed out that, his client had earlier filed OP(HMA).No.584/2005 before the same Family Court seeking divorce, which had been compromised as per Ext.A4 settlement, in which her right to claim her gold ornaments and money entrusted with the appellant had been fully left open. He contended that, when this was so, the appellant cannot be heard to say that he was not in possession of any of his client's gold ornaments or money; and hence that the learned Family Court has decreed the Original Petition correctly.

4. We have evaluated the afore rival submissions on the touchstone of the evidence on record, which comprises of the oral testimony of the power of attorney holder of the respondent as PW1, as also that of two other witnesses on her side, namely PW2 and PW3; while the appellant did not enter the box, but got his father - the 2^nd respondent in the Original Petition, to depose as DW1. Additionally, the respondent marked Exts.A1 to A5 documents on her side; while the appellant chose not to produce any.

5. The specific case of the respondent is that, after the marriage of the parties on 15.12.2003, they began to reside together at the house of the appellant and that her patrimony was entrusted by her to him and his father. She further went on to say that she had been treated badly by the respondents in the Original Petition, with demands of more dowry and a car. Of course, these allegations may not be fully relevant to our consideration in this case.

6. It is further conceded that the respondent had filed OP(HMA).No.584/2005, seeking a decree of divorce, which culminated in a compromise - namely Ext.A4, wherein, the right of the respondent to sue the appellant for return of her gold and money had been fully left open. Indubitably, therefore, a plea under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), against the maintainability of the present Original Petition cannot lie; though it has been so argued by Sri.D.Kishore, taking cue from the pleadings of his client in the written statement.

7. That said, the specific and primary contention of Sri.D.Kishore is that there is no whisper of entrustment by the respondent of her gold or patrimony with his client or his father.

8. The pleadings of the respondent in her petition are that, afte