Kerala HC held that strict proof isn’t required for gold entrusted to in-laws by married women, recognizing such acts are rooted in familial trust, not formal documentation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KERALA: The case XXXXX & Anr. v. YYYYY arose from a matrimonial dispute concerning the return of gold ornaments allegedly entrusted to the petitioner’s in-laws. Following the untimely death of her husband, the petitioner claimed she was forced out of the matrimonial home and denied the return of 81 sovereigns of gold given at the time of marriage.
The Family Court, Tirur, partially allowed her claim, ordering the return of 53 sovereigns. The in-laws challenged this decision before the Kerala High Court, leading to the present appeal.
ALSO READ: Kerala High Court Rules: Wedding Gold is Woman’s Property, Must Be Returned After Divorce
Background of the Case
In this case, the petitioner, a widow, sought the return of 81 sovereigns of gold ornaments allegedly entrusted to her in-laws during her marriage.
Following her husband’s suicide, she claimed her in-laws forced her out of the matrimonial home and refused to return her gold.
The Family Court, Tirur, accepted part of her claim and directed the return of 53 sovereigns. The in-laws (appellants) challenged this decision, arguing a lack of financial capacity on the part of the petitioner’s father, denial of entrustment, and inadmissibility of evidence.
The appeal contested both factual findings and evidentiary conclusions of the Family Court.
Petitioner’s Allegations
- Married Pradeep on 25.04.2012; he was employed abroad.
- Claimed she was adorned with 81 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage, including:
- 6 sovereigns were gifted by Pradeep during the engagement.
- Remainder from her parents and relatives.
- Gold was allegedly handed over to the in-laws for safekeeping.
- Accused in-laws (respondents) of harassment, cruelty, and demands for more gold and cash.
- Husband committed suicide on 16.01.2013; she was forced to leave the matrimonial home 15 days later.
- Despite repeated demands, gold was not returned, prompting legal action.
Respondent’s Defence
Denied all allegations of entrustment, harassment, or misappropriation and claimed:
- Petitioner retained all her ornaments.
- Only 13.5 sovereigns were given to her at the time of marriage.
Denied the financial capacity of the petitioner’s father to afford 81 sovereigns.
Contested validity and admissibility of evidence (bills & photos).
Argued that both respondents did not testify was an error; the 1st respondent did appear as RW1.
Findings of the Court
The Court, upon examining the evidence and submissions, concluded that the petitioner had successfully established the entrustment of 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the 2nd respondent, her mother-in-law.
It accepted the petitioner’s version that these ornaments were handed over for safekeeping while she resided at the matrimonial home, especially in light of the photographic evidence (Ext.P3 series) and the purchase bills (Ext.P2 series) which corroborated the acquisition of the ornaments just before the wedding.
The Court noted the practical difficulty a newly married woman would face in producing concrete documentary proof of entrustment, given the informal nature of such transactions within a family setting. It emphasized the need to assess such cases based on the preponderance of probabilities rather than strict standards of proof.
The Court also found that the 2nd respondent failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the missing gold ornaments and did not testify in court to rebut the claims. However, it accepted the 1st respondent’s contention, supported by unchallenged testimony, that he lived separately and had no involvement in the alleged entrustment.
As a result, the Court upheld the Family Court’s direction to the 2nd respondent to return 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the petitioner, while absolving the 1st respondent of any liability.
The Court said,
“Strict proof beyond a reasonable doubt as is required in criminal law would lead to injustice, and therefore the Court has to adopt a pragmatic approach and decide the issue of entrustment on the principle of preponderance of probabilities.”
READ JUDGMENT HERE
