In matrimonial disputes over property, courts may rely on oral testimony and the preponderance of probabilities, rather than strict documentary evidence.

J U D G M E N T

Shaffique, J This appeal is filed against the order dated 25/2/2008 in O.P.No.196/2006 of the Family Court, Kozhikode.

2. The petitioner is the appellant. The parties are referred to as shown in the original petition. The short facts involved in the case are as under:

Petitioner and the respondent got married on 09/06/1996 as per Hindu Religious rites and ceremonies. A child was born in their wedlock. Allegation is that though initially the respondent behaved very lovingly and affectionately, later on his behaviour changed and she was viewed in a suspicious manner. She had undergone severe sufferings but was tolerating the same. He did not even permit her to consult main doctors at the time of pregnancy and she was not permitted to mingle with others. On one occasion, after four months of marriage when they attended another marriage with the sisters of the respondent, petitioner also stood for the videographs which was not liked by the respondent. The respondent obtained the video film and deleted that portion. He was behaving in a very selfish and possessive manner and he did not even permit the petitioner to talk to others. The respondent used to ill treat her mentally. Since she could not tolerate his behaviour she took the child and left to her parental house. There was some mediation between the parties and she came back to the house of the respondent. According to her, she had 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage and 15 sovereigns were received as gift from her relatives. All the ornaments were kept by the respondent and she was given only a few ornaments for wearing. It is contended that all the ornaments were either pledged or sold by the respondent. The respondent even suspected her chastity and allegations were made in front of his mother as well. According to her, she was unable to continue the relationship and she left her matrimonial home. The child was admitted in a school nearby her house. The original petition is filed for realization of the gold ornaments or its value of Rs.2,65,500/-.

3. The respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations. According to him, she had only 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments of which 4½ sovereigns was thali chain which is in the possession of the petitioner herself. He denied having appropriated the gold ornaments. The above case was tried along with M.C.No.65/2006 and common evidence was taken. The petitioner and two witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 3. They placed reliance on Exts.A1 and A2 series. Respondent relied upon the oral testimony of RW1 and RW2 and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked.

4. The Family Court, after considering the claim in the original petition, rejected the claim against which the present appeal is filed by the petitioner. The Family Court observed that from the photographs produced it cannot be discerned that petitioner had 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. In Ext.A2 series, the name of purchaser and name of jewellery has not been typed and it is a computer printed estimate and the name of the purchaser has been written by them subsequently. It is also observed that petitioner's father, who had purchased the ornaments, was not examined nor the jewelery owner was examined and on finding that 45 sovereigns of gold was entrusted, in the absence of reliable evidence, decree cannot be granted and the application was dismissed.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that evidence of PWs 1 to 3 clearly proves the fact of entrustment of gold ornaments which has to be accounted by the respondent. In matrimonial matters where gold is being entrusted, it may not be possible to adduce direct proof when purchase of gold ornaments are done without any specific bill in that regard. Therefore the Court below had to consider the evidence based on the well settled principles of preponderance of probabilities. Viewed in that angle, there is sufficient evidence to prove entrustment of gold ornaments and the