A petitioner can recover misappropriated assets if sufficient evidence supports the claim, pertaining to marriage customs and proven ownership.

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

The appellant is the petitioner in O.P. No.736/2018 on the files of the Family Court, Mavelikkara. The said petition was filed, inter alia, seeking recovery of money and gold ornaments from the respondents, who are the husband and in- laws of the appellant. By the judgment impugned in this appeal, the Family Court allowed the petition in part.

2. For the ease of reference, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in the original petition. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnised on 22.05.2011. The petitioner alleged that her parents had given her 101 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage, out of which 85.375 sovereigns were misappropriated by the respondents for their personal needs. It was further alleged that, at the demand of the respondents, the petitioner’s father entrusted a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- to the second respondent towards her family share. It was also alleged that the mother of the petitioner had subscribed to the chit fund conducted by the second respondent and that an amount of Rs.5,37,500/- was due to her in that regard, which was misappropriated by the second respondent by adjusting it against the family share of the petitioner.

3. By way of amendment to the petition, it was further claimed by the petitioner that, on 04.09.2014 the respondents managed to obtain a sum of Rs.10,25,488/- from the Fixed Deposit account maintained by the petitioner with the Pathiyoor Farmers Service Co-operative Bank. It was also claimed that on 24.04.2014, the petitioner’s father joined as a partner in a firm by name “Vijaya Financiers”, conducted by the first and second respondents, and deposited a sum of Rs.1,24,000/- in the said firm with the objective of securing the future needs of the petitioner. The petitioner also claimed recovery of 16 sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to her minor daughter, alleging that the said ornaments were also misappropriated by the respondents. Accordingly, the petitioner raised a total claim for Rs.1,24,15,075/-.

4. The respondents stoutly resisted the petition contending that the allegations were false. They denied the entrustment of gold and money, as well as the alleged misappropriation of amounts pertaining to the chit fund and the bank account of the petitioner. According to them, the petitioner’s mother had two chits and had received the entire chit amounts, but defaulted repayment of 27 installments. They further contended that the petitioner was included in the partnership business only for namesake, being the wife of the first respondent, and that there was no contribution to the partnership business as alleged.

5. The above case was tried jointly with petitions filed by the husband for divorce and the custody of the minor child. The evidence in this case consisted of the oral testimony of PW1 to PW3 and RW1, and documentary evidence marked as Exts.A1 to A22, B1 to B16, and X1 and X2. Upon an elaborate appreciation of the evidence, the trial court partly allowed the petition and directed the respondents to return 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments or, in the alternative, to pay a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6%. The other claims raised by the petitioner were disallowed.

6. We have heard the petitioner, who appeared as party- in-person, and Sri. M. Kiranlal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

7. The quantity of gold ornaments worn by the petitioner at the time of marriage is to be examined at first. Ext.X1 is the Marriage Register of the SNDP Yogam, Peringala North Branch, for the period 2003–2012, which was produced before the court by summoning PW2, the Secretary of the said branch.