Matrimonial Appeal – Return of Gold Ornaments – Entrustment – Preponderance of Probabilities.
2025 KER 49796
High Court of Kerala
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran & Hon’ble Mrs. Justice M.B. Snehalatha
Mat. Appeal No. 773 of 2020; 02.07.2025
Facts: The respondent, Greeshma, filed O.P. No. 669/2015 before the Family Court, Tirur, seeking the return of 81 sovereigns of gold ornaments allegedly entrusted to the appellants, her brother-in-law and mother-in-law, for safekeeping after her marriage to Pradeep on 25.04.2012. Pradeep, who worked abroad, committed suicide in 2013. The respondent claimed that the appellants failed to return the ornaments after she left the matrimonial home due to pressure from her in-laws. The Family Court directed the appellants to return 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The appellants challenged this judgment, contending that no entrustment occurred and questioning the evidence.
Held: The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Family Court’s order. The Court found sufficient evidence, including bills (Ext.P2 series), photographs (Ext.P3 series), and oral testimonies (PW1 & PW2), to establish that the respondent possessed 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments purchased by her father before the marriage, in addition to 6 sovereigns gifted by her husband. The Court noted that the appellants failed to substantiate their claim that the respondent retained all her ornaments or that her father pledged them. Given the domestic and informal nature of entrustment in matrimonial homes, the Court applied the principle of preponderance of probabilities rather than requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. The entrustment of ornaments to the appellants was deemed probable, and their failure to return 53 sovereigns was upheld. The second appellant (mother-in-law) was also liable for costs.
Key Observations:
-
Entrustment of gold ornaments by a bride to in-laws in a matrimonial home is often informal, lacking documentary evidence due to familial trust.
-
Courts must adopt a pragmatic approach, relying on preponderance of probabilities in such disputes to avoid injustice to women.
-
The appellants’ contention regarding the respondent’s father’s financial capacity was unsupported by evidence.
Result: Appeal dismissed. Appellants directed to return 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the respondent with costs.
