Bride’s Gold Ornaments Ordinarily Entrusted To Husband Or Relatives For Safe Keeping: Kerala High Court Upholds Order Asking Man To Return Ornaments

The High Court was considering the appeals filed by a man against a common order passed by the Family Court. By the impugned common order, the trial court directed the appellant husband to return 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments, the petition schedule household articles, and Rs 50,000 to the respondent. The Court also awarded past and future maintenance to the respondent wife at the rate of Rs.4,000 per month.

The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar held, “It is a matter of common knowledge that, upon reaching the matrimonial home after marriage, a bride may not be in a position to retain all her gold ornaments in her personal custody. Ordinarily, such ornaments are entrusted to the husband or his close relatives for safe keeping. Taking into account the attendant circumstances of the case, we find that the respondent’s evidence that her gold ornaments were entrusted to the appellant and his mother is probable.”

Advocate K.M.Jamaludheen represented the Appellant while Advocate K.I. Sageer represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised in 1999. The respondent contended that at the time of marriage she was given 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.50,000 by her parents. When she went to the matrimonial home, she was provided with household articles worth Rs 30,000. Out of the said gold ornaments, 40 sovereigns were allegedly taken by the appellant and his mother (second respondent in O.P. No.1944/2012), who held the same in trust. It was further alleged that the ornaments were sold for the purpose of purchasing an autorickshaw for the appellant and for constructing a residential building. The respondent further contended that owing to the ill-treatment meted out to her by the appellant, she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home, and that she was therefore entitled to recover the gold ornaments, money and household articles.

She also claimed past and future maintenance on the ground that she was unable to maintain herself and that the appellant had sufficient means to provide the amount sought. These allegations were denied by the appellant.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the appellant did not seriously dispute the quantity of gold ornaments worn by the respondent at the time of marriage. His contention was confined to the correctness of the list, the inclusion of ornaments allegedly given by him, and the assertion that some ornaments worn by her were not genuine gold. During cross-examination, the appellant admitted that at the time of marriage, he was working as a coolie and earning only Rs 150 to Rs 250 per day. He also admitted that the respondent’s father was employed abroad at that time.

The Bench found that the respondent wife gave evidence consistent with her pleadings and withstood crossexamination satisfactorily. She also produced photographs showing the ornaments worn by her at the time of marriage.

“In the above factual background, we find no reason to disbelieve the respondent’s version that she had at least 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments, which is supported by other oral evidence adduced on her side. At the same time, having regard to the appellant’s financial position at the time of marriage, we are unable to accept his version that the ornaments worn by the respondent included gold given by him”, it stated.

The Bench found no justification to impose liability upon the appellant’s mother, as there was no convincing evidence to show that she was directly involved in the misappropriation of the ornaments or money. With regard to the claim for Rs 50,000 and the household articles, the Bench found no material on record to discredit the evidence adduced by the respondent. The Bench noticed that the Trial Court, having had the advantage of observing the demeanour of the witnesses, found her evidence more credible than that of the appellant in this regard.

The Bench found that the appellant’s claim that he had given 16 sovereigns of gold ornaments or Rs 5,00,000 to the respondent was not convincing. His evidence did not establish that he had sufficient financial means to mobilise such funds before the marriage. “The findings of the trial court rejecting the said claim therefore warrant no interference”, the Bench held.

Thus, allowing the appeal in part, the Bench exonerated the appellant’s mother from any liabilities arising under the decree.

Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:13291)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates K.M. Jamaludheen, Joby Varghese, Latha Prabhakaran

Respondent: Advocate K.I. Sageer

Click here to read/download Order