The court upheld the Family Court's dismissal of the wife's claim for return of gold and money due to insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in her assertions.

Sathish Ninan, J.

The original petition filed by the wife against the husband and his parents, seeking return of gold and money, was dismissed by the Family Court. The petitioner-wife is in appeal.

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on

01.10.2000. According to the petitioner, at the time of marriage she was provided with 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹ 75,000/- by her parents. The gold and money were allegedly misappropriated by the respondents. The petitioner seeks for return of the same.

3. The respondents denied the petitioner's claim that she was provided with ₹ 75,000/- and 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. The allegation of misappropriation was also denied. It was contended that whatever gold ornaments the petitioner had, was with her, and that she had sold the same in connection with the marriage of her sister and the amount was deposited by her in her account at the Tirur branch of Vijaya Bank.

4. The Family Court found discrepancies and inconsistencies in the pleadings and the evidence of the petitioner. It was found that the alleged misappropriation was not proved. Accordingly the original petition was dismissed.

5. We have heard learned counsel on either side.

6. In the original petition the claim is that, from out of the 65 sovereigns of the petitioner, 15 sovereigns were appropriated by the husband to enable him to go abroad after the marriage. It is further pleaded that, in the year 2010, 40 sovereigns and thereafter in 2011, 20 sovereigns, were taken by respondents 2 and 3 for construction of their house. According to the respondent, whatever gold ornaments the petitioner had was sold by her in connection with her sister's marriage which was held in the year 2007, and the amount was deposited in her account with the Tirur branch of Vijaya Bank. The bank account statement of the petitioner has been marked as Ext.R1. The account shows credit of ₹ 98,000/- on 06.07.2006, ₹ 50,000/- on 11.07.2006, ₹ 50,000/- on 19.07.2006, ₹ 50,000/- on 31.07.2006 and another ₹ 50,000/- on 09.08.2006. Admittedly the petitioner was not employed at that time and did not have any source of income. In the cross-examination of PW1 it is specifically suggested to her that the amount deposited into her account was obtained by sale of her ornaments. Though she denied the suggestion, she has not adduced any evidence to prove the source of the said fund. Though the learned counsel for the appellant- petitioner would argue that the said amount was obtained by sale of some property of her father, there is no evidence in the said regard. Hence, as noticed by the Family Court, it could only be held that the defence set up is probable.

7. So also it is to be noticed that in the original petition the claim is that the husband had appropriated 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments while returning to Gulf country after the marriage, and thereafter respondents 2 and 3 appropriated 40 sovereigns in the year 2010 and 20 sovereigns in the year 2011. This would make the total quantity of gold ornaments at 75 sovereigns. However, her claim is that at the time of marriage she was provided with 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments. This is attempted to be corrected in the evidence by stating in the proof affidavit that the quantity of gold ornaments misappropriated by the husband is 5 sovereigns. So also, while she was cross- examined, she would depose that 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments were misappropriated in the year 2007. Again, this is contradictory to her pleadings and her proof affidavit.

8. With regard to the claim for ₹ 75,000 there is no evidence to find the source or the payment. Though it is claimed that the amount was paid by her father, he was not examined. At the evidence stage the petitioner would contend that the amount was utilised by the elder broth