The court clarified that the ownership and misappropriation of matrimonial property can be claimed and enforced through legal proceedings.

Sathish Ninan, J.

The decree for gold and money, in an original petition filed by the wife against the husband and in-laws, is under challenge by the respondents.

2. The first respondent in the original petition is the husband, the second respondent is his mother, the third respondent his brother, and the 4^th respondent is his father. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 05.05.2011. During that time, the petitioner was employed at Ireland. According to her, at the time of marriage she was having 85 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It is her contention that, on the very next day of marriage, ie. on 06.05.2011, as was required by respondents 3 and 4, the petitioner entrusted her entire gold ornaments except a chain of two sovereigns, with respondents 1 and 2. The entrustment was for the purpose of keeping it in a locker which was opened in the name of respondents 1 and 2 just a couple of days prior to the marriage. After the marriage, on 04.06.2011, the wife returned to Ireland. The petitioner alleges that the entire gold ornaments were sold by respondents and the proceeds were utilised for clearing a housing loan of the respondents. In June 2011, the husband was taken to Ireland. It is alleged that, while at Ireland, the first respondent transferred amounts from the petitioner’s account, using her ATM card and internet banking facility, to the second respondent, which was misappropriated by them. The amount thus misappropriated is claimed to be Rs.22,50,000/-. There is a further allegation that the first respondent had caused her to avail a loan from a Bank at Ireland of 10000 euro = Rs.7.5 lakhs and that the said amount was sent to the respondents allegedly for clearing off a debt due to the Bank. The parties fell apart and the Original Petition was filed seeking return of the gold and money. 3. The respondents denied the claims.

4. The Family Court, granted a decree for 80¾ sovereigns of gold and Rs.10,88,529/- from out of the claim for Rs.22,50,000/-. The claim for Rs.7.5 lakhs, allegedly availed as loan, was declined. Since there is no appeal by the petitioner, the said claim is not relevant for the purpose of this appeal.

5. We have heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Smt.R.Ranjanie, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

6. Firstly, we proceed to consider the claim with regard to the gold ornaments. Though in the original petition it was specifically averred that the petitioner had 85 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage, the said contention is not denied in the objections filed by the respondents. The Family Court has granted a decree for only 80 ¾ sovereigns after finding that she was wearing 82 ¾ sovereigns at the time of marriage and that a chain of 2 sovereigns was with her. As was noticed supra, there is no appeal by the petitioner. Hence we only need to consider whether the petitioner was having 82 ¾ sovereigns at the time of marriage.

7. Ext.A15 is a marriage photograph and Ext.A16 is the album containing marriage photographs. The photographer was examined as PW3. We find that there is nothing to discredit his evidence and also the genuineness of the photographs.

8. Ext.A10 series are the estimates with regard to purchase of gold ornaments. The petitioner's claim is that Ext.A10 series relates to purchase of ornaments from one Rajan Jewellery. Its owner was examined as PW2. However, but for Ext.A10 item 4, which relates to a long chain, the other estimates were denied by him. The document admitted by PW2 is a