In a matrimonial claim for the return of stridhan and money, the burden of proof lies upon the claimant to establish entrustment through consistent and credible evidence; failing which, recovery cannot be ordered based on mere allegations or misappreciated evidence by the trial court.

JUDGMENT

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

The husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law, are the appellants herein. They were the respondents 1 to 3 in the original petition filed by the wife for return of gold and money. As per the impugned judgment, the wife was allowed to recover an amount of ₹1,00,000/- and 70 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the husband and the mother-in-law, and also an amount of ₹5,00,000/- from the husband. The wife is the respondent herein.

2. The original petition was filed by the wife claiming realization of money under five heads; viz., (1) 70 sovereigns of gold ornaments given at the time of marriage, (2) an amount of ₹1,00,000/- given as patrimony at the time of marriage, (3) an amount of ₹10,00,000/- availed as loan in joint names, (4) an amount of ₹5,00,000/- availed as loan in the name of wife, and (5) an amount of ₹3,00,000/- availed as loan in the name of the wife.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the appeal.

4. The marriage between the first appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 10.06.2007 and a child was born in their wedlock on 20.09.2008. According to the respondent, she was given ₹1,00,000/- on 12.04.2007 during betrothal, which was entrusted to the appellants by the parents of the respondent as patrimony; she wore 70 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. In addition to that, five sovereigns of gold ornaments were gifted by her relatives. It is alleged that except five sovereigns of gold ornaments, the remaining 70 were taken by the first appellant and were kept in the possession of his mother/second appellant. According to the respondent, there was disharmony even from the initial days of marriage. It is further alleged that the first appellant was having illicit relationship with a woman named Manju. It was also her case that the appellants asked her to demand money from her parents for purchase of a property and the same was purchased by her parents in the joint names of the first appellant and the first appellant/husband; and thereafter, availed a loan of ₹10,00,000/- by pledging the aforesaid property in the joint name of first appellant and the respondent, with respondent’s father as guarantor. It is alleged that the repayment of the said loan was done by the respondent’s father. Thereafter, other loans of ₹5,00,000/- and ₹3,00,000/- were availed by the first appellant, which were misappropriated for his own use. According to the respondent, she was driven out from the matrimonial home on 28.03.2014 and the child was forcibly taken by appellants 2 and 3. Though she requested to see her child, she was not permitted. In the meanwhile, a crime was registered in the Perumpetty Police Station on the respondent’s complaint and thereafter, the matter was settled and she was taken back to the matrimonial home. When she reached the matrimonial home, again the disputes and ill treatment were continued by the first appellant. Alleging that her gold and money were misappropriated by the appellants, she filed the original petition before the Family Court for return of gold and money.

5. The appellants denied the allegations raised by the respondent. According to them, the respondent had worn only 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments, out of which 20 were with the respondent and some were pledged by herself along with her father in the District Co-operative Bank of India, Ezhumattoor Branch. It is contended that after the marriage, the first appellant had given her eight sovereigns of gold orna