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 belon