The court upheld the principle of equitable distribution of marital property including gold ornaments, reflecting the non-application of strict evidence rules in family court standards.

Sathish Ninan, J.

The decree for gold and money, is under challenge by the respondents in the original petition.

2. The original petition is filed by the wife and daughter, against the husband/father and mother-in-law, claiming return of gold ornaments and for marriage expenses for the daughter. According to the petitioners case, at the time of marriage of the first petitioner and first respondent, which was solemnized on 24.04.2006, the first petitioner was provided with 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The ornaments were misappropriated by the respondents. In the marital relationship, the second petitioner- daughter was born. The parties fell apart. By way of the original petition, return of the 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments and marriage expenses of ₹ 10 lakhs is claimed.

3. The Family Court decreed the original petition, as was prayed for.

4. We have heard learned counsel on either side.

5. PW1 is the first petitioner and PW2 is her brother. They deposed that the first petitioner was provided with 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. According to the respondents, at the time of marriage the first petitioner had only approximately 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It is also contended that the ornaments are with the first petitioner herself. Along with the proof affidavit the petitioners produced two photographs taken in connection with the marriage. The same were not marked in evidence by the Family Court for the reason that the negatives of the photographs were not produced. Section 14 of the Family Courts Act provides that strict rules of evidence does not apply to the proceedings before the Family Court. PW1 has admitted that among the ornaments worn by her at the time of marriage, which were seen in the photographs, few ornaments pointed out by her, are not gold ornaments. She claimed that she was wearing 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments. There is nothing to find against the genuineness of the photographs.

Considering the admission of the respondents that the first petitioner had approximately 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments, her admission that some of the gold ornaments seen in the photographs are not gold, we find that the petitioner was having approximately 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage.

6. Though referring to the cross-examination of PW1 the learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the petitioner was unable to prove the source of money for the purchase and also the factum of purchase of the gold ornaments, in the light of the materials as noted above, including the respondents admission of petitioner having had 10 sovereigns, the said argument has no force.

7. The claim of the first petitioner that the gold ornaments were entrusted with the respondents after the marriage is vouched to by PW1. On going through the evidence we do not find any reason to disbelieve her. It is quite common that on the bride reaching the husband’s house the ornaments which are not necessary except for the daily wear are entrusted to the husband’s family for safe custody. In the normal course, the petitioner would have retained with her some of the ornaments for her daily wear. Reckoning such quantity to be 5 sovereigns, we conclude that the respondents are in possession of the remaining 15 sovereigns. The first petitioner is entitled to get return of the same from the respondents.

8. With regard to the claim for marriage expenses of the second petitioner, the amount of ₹ 10 lakhs awarded cannot be said to be exorbitant. It is not attempted to be contended otherwise. The father is bound to pay the marriage expenses of the second petitioner.

Accordingly the appeal is allow