Responsibility for returning marriage-related assets lies with the husband, but claims require proper evidence for enforcement.

JUDGMENT

K.Harilal, J.

1.The appellant is the husband of the respondent. The respondent herein filed OP 30/2005 before the Family Court, Kottayam, seeking a decree for recovery of an amount of Rs 3,67,500/- with future interest from the appellant herein and his assets. The parties are referred to as in the original petition.

2. According to the petitioner, her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 19.8.2001 and at the time of marriage, she was given 36 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs 75,000/- was given to the first respondent. On the date of marriage itself the respondent had taken gold ornaments to keep the same in almirah. Thereafter, the respondent has appropriated the said gold ornaments for his personal need. That apart, the respondent borrowed Rs 80,000/- for construction of the house and out of that amount he returned Rs 65,000/- only. In addition to 36 sovereigns of gold ornaments, which was given to her at the time of marriage, the respondent has misappropriated 3 sovereigns of gold ornaments, which was given to the respondent on the date of engagement of the marriage and 5½ sovereigns of gold ornaments of the child. Hence she is entitled to get back 39 sovereigns of gold ornaments which was given to her and 5½ sovereigns of gold ornaments which was given to the child and Rs

95,000/- (₹75,000 + ₹20,000) which was given to the respondent at the time of marriage and subsequently borrowed by him from the parents of the petitioner.

3. The respondent filed objection denying the averments in the petition. According to him, an amount of Rs 75,000/- was entrusted with the father of the respondent, but no amount was entrusted with the respondent. He is not aware of the weight of the gold ornaments worn by the petitioner at the time of marriage. The child was given only one sovereign of gold by the family members of the petitioner and 23 gms of gold ornaments were given to the child by the respondent and those gold ornaments are still with the child and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to get back the same. The respondent had never borrowed any amount from the petitioner or her parents. He has received ₹65,000/- from the petitioner on 5.9.2003 for the purpose of the employment of the petitioner herself. Further he contended that the petitioner along with policemen trespassed into the house of the respondent and taken away the gold ornaments and the articles worth Rs 1,00,000/-. The respondent filed complaint before the Dy.S.P for the recovery of the said articles and ornaments from the petitioner and the same was taken a way on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner before the police authorities. With the above contentions, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. On the rival contentions, both parties adduced evidence which consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and RW1 and Exts A1 to A10 and B1 to B9 were marked. After considering the evidence on record, the Family Court passed the impugned judgment granting the decree for realizing Rs 75,000/- with 9% interest and 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its approximate value of Rs 1, 87, 500/- with 9% interest from the date of judgment. So also, allowed to realize her costs of Rs 2,000/- from the respondent. The legality and correctness of the said judgment is under challenge in this appeal preferred by the respondent.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

6. It is the specific case of the petitioner that at the time of marriage she was wearing 36 sovereigns of gold ornaments and 3 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to the respondent in connection with the marriage. That apart, Rs 75,000/- was given to the respondent in connection with the marriage by the parents of the petitioner. The respondent has admitted that the amount of Rs 75,000/- was entrusted with his father in connection with the marriage, by the parents of the petitioner. Thus, he has denied the entrustment of the sai