A claimant must demonstrate ownership and actual entrustment of gold ornaments, with the burden of proof resting on them, as per legal standards governing such claims.

JUDGMENT

[Mat.Appeal No.920 OF 2018, C.O.No.123 OF 2025]

Muralee Krishna S., J.

The respondents in O.P.No.883 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda, filed this Mat. Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act , 1984, challenging the judgment dated 26.04.2018 passed in that original petition. C.O.No.123 of 2025 is the cross objection filed by the respondent-petitioner in O.P.No.883 of 2015. For convenience of reference, the parties are referred to in this judgment in their status as in Mat. Appeal No.920 of 2018.

2. The respondent is the legally wedded wife of the 1^st appellant. Their marriage was solemnised on 09.11.2005 at St. Mary’s Church, Vendore in Amballur Village, as per the customs and ceremonies prevailing in their community. According to the respondent, at the time of marriage, her family members gifted her 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments. After marriage, the respondent and the 1^st appellant resided together in the house of one George, who is the uncle of the 1^st appellant. The respondent contends that during their joint living, the appellants ill-treated her physically and mentally, stating that she is not good-looking and also demanded her to bring more money and gold from her house. According to the respondent, she entrusted the 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments received by her from her family members to the 1^st appellant as a trustee. However, the appellants misused those gold ornaments.

2.1. The respondent further pleaded in the O.P that the matrimonial relationship between herself and the 1^st appellant was not cordial. On several occasions, she was locked up in a room without providing food, etc. When the ill treatment became intolerable, the respondent told the appellants that she would inform her parents, and then the appellants forcefully took her to Bombay, where the appellants are residing. From Bombay also she met ill-treatment from the appellants. On 13.02.2007, demanding the respondent to bring more money and gold from her house, she was forcefully taken to Thrissur, her native place, in a train and thereafter, the respondent has been residing with her parents. The 1^st appellant deserted her, and after 13.02.2007, the appellants did not enquire about her well-being. Though the respondent demanded back her gold ornaments, the appellants were not ready to return the same. Therefore, the respondent filed the original petition before the Family Court under Section 7 of the Family Court Acts, 1984, seeking the return of 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments or their value from the appellants.

3. The appellants herein-respondents entered appearance before the Family Court and filed a joint written statement dated 05.07.2016 denying all the averments in the original petition. According to the appellants, the respondent had only below 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. She had not entrusted those gold ornaments to the 1^st appellant. It is pleaded in the written statement filed by the appellants that on 13.02.2007, the respondent came back to her native place for the purpose of attending an examination. At that time, she had taken all her gold ornaments with her. Now, the respondent has obtained divorce from the 1^st appellant and married another person. She is residing with her 2^nd husband at present. It is further contended in the written statement that the respondent filed a false case against the appellants before the Irinjalakkuda Police, alleging an offence under Section 498A of the IPC , and the said case was tried before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda, as C.C.No.1361 of 2008, wherein the appellants were acquitted.

4. On the basis of the pleading, the Family Court framed the following is