A divorced woman is entitled to Mahar and other properties provided under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

JUDGMENT

Sathish Ninan, J.

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

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 28.09.2012. The husband was abroad during that time. After the marriage, the wife was taken to the matrimonial home on 14.09.2013. It is the claim of the wife that, before she was taken to the matrimonial home, her parents provided her with 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.2,00,000/-. The gold and money were misappropriated by the husband for investing in the business at abroad. The parties fell apart. Accordingly, the original petition was filed for return of gold and money.

3. The respondent contended that, at the time of marriage the petitioner had only 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It was claimed that he had provided her as mahar, a gold chain weighing 2.5 sovereigns. The alleged payment of Rs.2,00,000/- was denied. The allegation of misappropriation was denied. It was contended that when the wife went back to her parental home she had taken most of the gold ornaments with her and that the remaining ornaments were returned through her father on the intervention of the Mahal Committees of the parties.

4. The Family Court upheld the respondent's plea and accordingly, dismissed the original petition.

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

6. Ext.A1 is a sales estimate with regard to the purchase of gold. It would support the wife's claim that she had 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. Even going by the respondent's plea, the wife had 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments. So also the quantity of gold ornaments claimed to have been returned to the wife through her father, on the intervention of the Mahal Committees is, 18.5 sovereigns. Therefore, we find the claim of the petitioner that she had 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments is probable.

7. The case of the respondent with regard to the intervention of the Mahal Committees of both sides, and the return of 18.5 sovereigns, is proved by the deposition of RWs 2 to 5. RWs 2 to 4 are the office bearers of the respondent's Mahal Committee. RW5 is the then Secretary of the petitioner's Mahal Committee. We have gone through the evidence of the witnesses. We do not find any reason to disbelieve their version. Even RW5, the Secretary of the petitioner's Mahal Committee, has deposed about the mediation and the return of 18.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the petitioner's father. No reason is attributed or even suggested as against RW5 as to why he deposed against the interests of the petitioner. The mere discrepancy with regard to the place of handing over of the gold and whether it was to the petitioner's father, is not fatal. We concur with the Family Court in its finding that the gold ornaments belonging to the petitioner was returned to the wife.

8. Even going by the respondent's case, the Mahar given, was a gold chain of 2.5 sovereigns. Though the petitioner claims that the gold chain is of 4 sovereigns, it is not established by any evidence. It has come out in evidence that the settlement arrived at during the mediation could not be made in writing since the respondent refused to part with the Mahar to the petitioner. Therefore, the Mahar is still with the respondent. Section 3 (1) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 provides that, a divorced woman shall be entitled to the Mahar and other properties given to her before or at the time of marriage or after her marriage, by her relatives or friends or her husb