Partial recovery of funds allowed based on evidence; claims for gold ornaments were dismissed.

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

A petition filed by the wife for recovery of gold and money was dismissed by the Family Court, Vadakara, as per the impugned judgment. The appellant/petitioner challenges the said judgment in this appeal.

2. The appellant alleged in the petition that the Nikkah ceremony between her and the first respondent was conducted on 19.11.2007 and that the marriage was solemnised on 04.05.2008. At the time of the Nikkah, her father entrusted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the second respondent through one Khalid. Later, in February 2008, he allegedly paid another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the third respondent. It was further alleged that at the time of marriage, the appellant was adorned with 45.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments. One month after the marriage, the respondents obtained all her gold ornaments. On 12.03.2012, she received a letter from the first respondent informing her that she had been divorced by pronouncement of Talaq.

3. The appellant further alleged that when she filed a criminal complaint, Crime No.197/2012 of Payyoli Police Station was registered under Sections 498A, 406, 511 of 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents. During the investigation, the police seized nearly 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the respondents, which were later released to the appellant by the court. According to her, the respondents raised a false contention in the maintenance case filed by her that 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments were sold at her request. She contended that the said allegation is false, as she had never made such a request. The appellant thus sought recovery of the remaining gold ornaments (approximately 15.5 sovereigns) and Rs.2,00,000/- from the respondents.

4. The respondents denied the allegations and contended that, as instructed by the appellant’s father, 15 sovereigns of gold belonging to the appellant were sold and the sale proceeds were deposited in her name with a non-banking financial institution, Kerala Roadways (P) Ltd. (KRS). They denied that they were entrusted with Rs.2,00,000/- by the appellant’s father.

5. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 to PW3 and RW1 and RW2, along with documentary evidence marked as Exts.A1, A2, and B1 to B6. Upon evaluation of the evidence, the trial court concluded that the appellant failed to prove the entrustment of money and that the sale of 15 sovereigns of gold and deposit of the sale proceeds in KRS were effected at the request of the appellant. The court further held that there was no misappropriation. On these findings, the trial court dismissed the petition.

6. We have heard Sri. P.A. Harish, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri. Jacob Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

7. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to recover approximately 15.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments or their market value from the respondents.

8. Since it is admitted by the respondents that they sold the gold ornaments and deposited the proceeds in KRS, what is to be considered is whether the said contention has been proved. According to the respondents, the sale proceeds of the gold amounted to Rs.1,50,000/-, which was deposited on 03.02.2009 as evidenced by Ext.B5. They further contended that a Post Office account was opened in the name of the appellant and that a Recurring Deposit was commenced in that account, using the monthly interest derived from the KRS deposit together with contributions from the husband. To substantiate this claim, they produced