Justice Devan Ramachandran, Justice M.B. Snehalatha, Kerala High Court
Married Women Can’t Be Expected To Prove Gold Entrustment To In-Laws With Receipts, Courts Must Take Pragmatic View: Kerala High Court
|Respondent after her husband's suicide alleged that her in-laws withheld 81 sovereigns of her gold jewellery.
The Kerala High Court has said that courts must adopt a realistic and pragmatic approach while adjudicating petitions filed by married women seeking the return of gold ornaments they may have entrusted to their in-laws during the course of their matrimonial life.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice MB Snehalatha said, "A newly wedded woman would not be in a position to demand receipts or independent witnesses while handing over the jewellery to the husband or in-laws. Due to the domestic and informal nature of such transactions, she would not be in a position to produce documents or independent witnesses to prove entrustment."
The Court held that when courts deal with such claims, especially involving stridhan (gold and jewellery received by a woman from her family at the time of marriage), they should decide based on the principle of preponderance of probabilities—a standard used in civil law which evaluates which party's version appears more likely to be true, rather than requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt as is done in criminal cases.
The Court observed, "In such circumstances, 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."
Background
The ruling came in the context of an appeal filed by a widowed woman, who had approached the family court seeking the return of 81 sovereigns of gold ornaments that she claimed were entrusted to her mother-in-law and brother-in-law for safekeeping.
According to her petition, these ornaments included gold gifted to her by her parents, relatives, and husband, and she had worn them on her wedding day. Soon after their marriage, her husband moved abroad for employment, while she stayed behind at the matrimonial home with her in-laws.
During this time, she alleged, she was subjected to harassment and cruelty by her in-laws over dowry demands. Eventually, after the tragic suicide of her husband abroad, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home, and her repeated requests for the return of her gold ornaments were allegedly ignored.
She then moved the family court, which partly allowed her claim, directing the in-laws to return 53 sovereigns of gold. Dissatisfied with this decision, the in-laws filed an appeal before the High Court.
Findings
The Court examined the evidence, including purchase bills showing the woman’s father had bought 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments, wedding photographs clearly depicting her wearing substantial jewellery and the fact that these pieces of evidence were not seriously contested by the in-laws.
The High Court upheld the family court’s order against the mother-in-law, directing her to return the 53 sovereigns. However, the Court exonerated the brother-in-law, accepting his assertion that he resided separately and was unlikely to have had custody of the ornaments. Thus, the order was modified to the extent that it relieved the brother-in-law of any liability.
Cause Title: Prasad & Anr. v. Greeshma, [2025:KER:49786]
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates P Venugopal, TJ Maria Goretti, and Ferha Azeez.
Respondent: Senior Advocate TK Krishnanunni, along with Advocates Meena A, Vinod Ravindranath, MR Mini, Ashwin Sathyanath, KC Kiran, M Devesh, Anish Antony Anathazhath, and Thareeq Anver.