The court's findings highlight the evidence required to substantiate claims of misappropriation in matrimonial disputes.

Sathish Ninan, J.

The decree for gold and money, granted in the original petition filed by the wife against the husband, is under challenge in this appeal by the husband.

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 04.03.2007. According to the petitioner, at the time of marriage, she was provided with 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.1,00,000/-. In addition to the same, the petitioner's mother had given a gold ring of one sovereign to the respondent. She was also given a gold chain of 3 sovereigns as mahar. The petitioner alleges that, except the half sovereigns with her the rest were misappropriated by the respondent for the construction of a house. It is further alleged that an amount of Rs.6,08,000/-, which was deposited in the bank account of the petitioner, was also misappropriated by the husband. It is also claimed that the petitioner was provided with household articles and utensils, which are with the respondent.

3. The respondent denied the claim that the petitioner was provided with 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.1,00,000/-. The claim that a gold chain weighing 3 sovereigns was given as Mahar, is admitted. The allegation that the gold ornaments belonging to the petitioner were misappropriated by him for the construction of a house, was denied. The allegation of having taken more than Rs.6,00,000/- from the bank account of the petitioner, was also denied.

4. The Family Court upheld the claim of the petitioner and granted a decree.

5. We have heard the learned counsel on either side.

6. Though the petitioner claims that she had 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments, according to the respondent, she had only 10 sovereigns. Ext.A1 is the copy of a bill issued from a jewellery shop, which has been produced to substantiate the petitioner's claim that she had 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. PW3 is the owner of the jewellery shop. He has issued Ext.A1. He deposed that new gold ornaments were made out of the old gold ornaments provided by the petitioner's father. The Family Court found the evidence of PW3 to be reliable. Nothing could be exhibited before us to find otherwise. Coming to the quantity of gold ornaments, in the light of Ext.A1 coupled with the evidence of PW3 and that of the petitioner, we find no reason to differ from the view adopted by the Family Court. The claim of the petitioner that at the time of adorning the Mahr, the respondent was presented with a gold ring worth one sovereign, is quite probable. There is no reason to disbelieve such a claim. So also, it is the claim with regard to the entrustment of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent at the time of adorning Mahar. The Family Court was right in having granted a decree for 33.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that the gold ornaments and money were appropriated by the respondent for the purpose of constructing a residential house. Though the respondent claimed that the construction was utilising the money sent by him from Saudi Arabia, where he was employed, there is no material to evidence the same. The claim being that money sent from abroad, necessarily, there would be sufficient documents to establish the same. Non-production of the same leads to adverse inference against the respondent. It probabilies the petitioner's claim that the gold ornaments and money were misappropriated for the purpose of constructing the house. The Family Court was right in having granted a decree regarding the same.

8. Coming to the claim for Rs.6,08,000/-, which was allegedly misappropriated by the respondent, though the petitioner relies on Ext.A2 bank passbook, the same is far too insufficient to substantiate the contention. Ext.A2 does not reflect withdrawal of a