Reiterating a pragmatic approach to matrimonial disputes, the Kerala High Court has held that a newly-married woman cannot be expected to furnish formal proof or independent witnesses to establish the entrustment of her gold ornaments to her in-laws.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha made this observation while partly allowing a matrimonial appeal arising out of a family court order directing the appellants to return 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments to their daughter-in-law (the respondent).

The respondent had filed a petition seeking return of 81 sovereigns of gold allegedly handed over to her husband’s family during her marriage in April 2012. Following her husband's untimely death in early 2013, she claimed that she was pressured to leave the matrimonial home and her repeated demands for return of the jewellery were ignored.

Although the appellants denied both the quantity of gold and the fact of entrustment, the High Court relied on jewellery purchase bills and wedding photographs to conclude that 53 sovereigns were credibly shown to have been acquired by the petitioner’s family. The Court found this supported by both oral and documentary evidence.

The Bench emphasized that in most Indian households, gold ornaments given to a bride are entrusted to the husband or in-laws within the confines of familial trust. “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,” the Court remarked.

It added that applying a strict standard of proof akin to criminal law in such cases would result in injustice. Instead, courts should rely on the civil standard of preponderance of probabilities. “In such circumstances, strict proof beyond a reasonable doubt as required in criminal law would lead to injustice,” the Bench observed.

Highlighting the informal nature of domestic transactions, the Court further noted, “A woman residing in her matrimonial home, particularly in the early stages of marriage, cannot be expected to anticipate future legal disputes and preserve documentary evidence. She is expected to trust, conform and remain silent.”

While affirming the family court’s decision in part, the High Court found no material to implicate the 1st appellant (brother-in-law), who lived separately and was not part of the matrimonial household. It held that the 53 sovereigns were entrusted specifically to the 2nd appellant (mother-in-law).

Consequently, the Court set aside the decree as against the 1st appellant and directed the 2nd appellant to return 53 sovereigns of gold to the respondent, along with litigation costs.

Case Title: XYZ & Anr. v. ABC
Case No.: MAT.APPEAL NO. 773 OF 2020
Coram: Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha
Advocates for Appellants: P. Venugopal, T.J. Maria Goretti, Ferha Azeez
Advocates for Respondent: Sr. Adv. T. Krishnanunni, Meena A., Vinod Ravindranath, M.R. Mini, Ashwin Sathyanath, K.C. Kiran, M. Devesh, Anish Antony Anathazhath, Thareeq Anver