The court upheld the claimant’s right to return of gold ornaments based on credible evidence despite challenges regarding the authenticity of the items involved.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Family Court, Ernakulam, in O.P.No.1635/2014.

2. The afore Original Petition was filed by the respondent herein - who is his former wife, seeking return of 101 sovereigns of gold and Rs.50,000/-, which she claims to comprise her patrimony.

3. The appellant contested the afore claim, asserting that the gold ornaments brought by the respondent are not gold, but are “imitations”; and further, that none of it, nor the money, was ever entrusted with him.

4. The learned Family Court allowed the parties to trial and recorded the evidence of the respondent as PW1, as also PW2 on her side; while, that of the appellant was RW1. In addition, three documents were marked on the side of the respondent herein as Exts.A1 to A3; while, the appellant produced no documents.

5. The learned Court, after analyzing the evidence on record, found that the respondent is entitled only to an extent of 80 sovereigns of gold; and thus decreed it, ordering the appellant to return such to her; or in the alternative, its present market value.

6. This appeal assails the judgment of the learned Family Court.

7. Even though we have not called for the Trial Court Records, the copies of the testimonies and evidence on record have been given to us across the bar by the learned Counsel for the parties, with the express consent that they can be relied upon by us in delivering this judgment.

8. Sri.V.C.Madhavankutty – learned Counsel for the appellant, argued that the Court has held his client liable to return 80 sovereigns of gold without any substantiating evidence and merely based on the uncorroborated version and testimony of PW1. He contended that the judgment and decree, therefore, is vitiated.

9. Sri.Basil Chandy Vavachan - appearing for the respondent, refuted the afore submissions, contending that, not only is the claim of his client fully proved through the materials on record, particularly Ext.A1 Marriage Register; it is also virtually admitted by the appellant that his client had 101 sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage. He pointed out that it is, in fact, his client, who admitted that she had received a “Thali” and a chain weighing 10 sovereigns; and that the learned Court has, therefore, reduced all such and further, to arrive at a final weight of 80 sovereigns of gold, which is without any error. He prayed that this appeal be, therefore, dismissed.

10. We have examined the evidence, on the touchstone of the afore rival submissions.

11. It is uncontested that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 05.02.2006, after they had courted each other for some time romantically. This is evident from Ext.A1 - Marriage Register, which is more relevant for the reason that it contains an endorsement that the respondent herein was having 101 sovereigns of gold at the time of her marriage. This document is not disputed by the appellant; but in fact, he admitted his signature in it, as also that of his relatives.

12. It is the specific case of the respondent, while she testified as PW1, as is also available in her pleadings, that 80 sovereigns of her gold were misappropriated by the appellant at various points, for the purpose of his business. This is sought to be proved through Ext.A3 - Compact Disc, which contains advertisements and other material for his software business.

13. The learned Court, in our view correctly, has concluded that, since the appellant has not been able to establish any source for his business, the case of the respondent, that he financed it through her gold ornaments, becomes probablized. On the contrary, the traverse of the appellant is edificed on his assertion that the gold ornaments are “imitations”