The Kerala High Court has clarified that gold ornaments entrusted to a spouse at the time of marriage, even in a second marriage, constitute a legally enforceable claim for return. The judgment underscores the importance of documentary and visual evidence in matrimonial disputes where oral testimony is contested, setting a clear precedent for the recovery of marital assets.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Jayasandhya, sought recovery of 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹5,50,000 from her husband, Babu, following their separation in 2012. She alleged that these assets were given at the time of their 2007 marriage and subsequently misappropriated. She also sought custody of their daughter, but later withdrew this claim.
Procedural History
- 2013: Petition filed in Family Court, Alappuzha, seeking return of gold, money, and child custody
- 2015: Family Court awarded ₹5,50,000 with interest but rejected claims for gold and custody
- 2016: Both parties filed appeals before the Kerala High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought return of 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹5,50,000, while the respondent contested both claims, asserting the petitioner had no means to acquire such assets and that no gold was ever entrusted to him.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether documentary evidence and photographs can establish entitlement to gold ornaments entrusted at marriage, and whether the burden of proof shifts to the spouse in possession when the claimant provides credible evidence of ownership.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on Ext. A4 bills showing purchase of 48 sovereigns of gold prior to marriage, and Ext. A2 photographs depicting the petitioner wearing approximately 50 sovereigns on the day before and after marriage. It was argued that the respondent never challenged the genuineness of these exhibits, and that it is customary for brides to entrust gold to husbands for safekeeping. The petitioner’s mother’s testimony corroborated recovery of ornaments after her first marriage.
For the Respondent
The respondent denied any receipt of gold, claiming the petitioner had no financial means to acquire such ornaments. He argued that the photographs were irrelevant and that the bills related to ornaments purchased during a prior marriage. He also contended that the ₹5,50,000 was spent by the petitioner on her own needs, though he produced no evidence to substantiate this.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous review of the evidence, emphasizing that failure to challenge documentary exhibits constitutes tacit acceptance of their authenticity. The photographs, though not formally authenticated, were not disputed by the respondent, and the Court held that their probative value could not be dismissed on technical grounds.
"There is likewise no challenge to the genuineness of Ext. A4 series bills, though it was elicited in cross-examination that the gold ornaments covered by those bills had been purchased prior to the petitioner's first marriage."
The Court rejected the Family Court’s erroneous finding that the petitioner’s mother had stated the respondent insisted on no gold being worn at the marriage. The actual deposition indicated only that the mother advised against it, not that it was enforced. The Court further noted that the respondent’s contradictory statements regarding the purchase of a residential plot in March 2008 - first claiming it was bought with his own funds, then asserting it was purchased before marriage - undermined his credibility.
The Court also addressed the claim for ₹5,50,000, noting that the petitioner’s withdrawals from KSFE and other institutions coincided with the timing of the property purchase, and that the respondent failed to produce any loan documents with essential details. The Court held that the burden of explaining the source of funds for major purchases shifts to the party in control of the assets.
Regarding the petitioner’s mental capacity, the Court held that mere prior psychiatric treatment does not equate to legal incapacity under Order XXXII Rule 1 of the CPC. No judicial adjudication or court finding of incapacity had been made, rendering the objection invalid.
The Verdict
The petitioner won on both claims. The Court held that gold ornaments entrusted at marriage must be returned, and that documentary and photographic evidence, when unchallenged, are sufficient to establish ownership. The respondent was directed to return 30 sovereigns of gold or its market value at the time of recovery, and the ₹5,50,000 award was upheld.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Documentary Evidence Prevails Over Denial
- Practitioners must insist on formal objections to documentary exhibits during trial; silence constitutes acquiescence
- Photographs showing possession of assets at critical times are admissible even without formal authentication if unchallenged
- Courts will not reject evidence on speculative grounds, such as timing discrepancies in witness statements
Burden Shifts to the Party in Control of Assets
- When a spouse claims to have received marital assets, and the other party provides credible evidence of acquisition, the burden shifts to the recipient to explain the use or disposal of those assets
- Failure to produce loan documents or financial records to rebut claims of misappropriation will result in adverse inference
Mental Incapacity Cannot Be Alleged Without Judicial Finding
- A party cannot challenge the maintainability of a petition on grounds of unsound mind merely based on past psychiatric treatment
- Only a formal adjudication under Order XXXII Rule 15 or a court finding of incapacity renders a next friend mandatory
- Legal practitioners must avoid frivolous objections on mental capacity without supporting medical or judicial records
