The Kerala High Court has clarified a critical principle in matrimonial property disputes: gold ornaments given at marriage are presumed to have been entrusted to the husband’s family for safekeeping, and the burden lies on them to prove otherwise. This ruling reinforces the protection of a wife’s stridhan rights under customary and statutory norms, offering clear guidance to family courts handling similar claims.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a petition filed by a wife and her minor daughter against the husband and mother-in-law, seeking the return of 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹10 lakhs as marriage expenses for the daughter. The wife alleged that the ornaments, gifted at the time of marriage on 24.04.2006, were misappropriated after marital discord. The respondents admitted she had approximately 10 sovereigns but denied possession of the rest, claiming the ornaments remained with her.
Procedural History
- 2008: Original petition filed in Family Court, Nedumangad
- 2013: Family Court decreed in favor of petitioners, ordering return of 30 sovereigns and ₹10 lakhs
- 2014: Appeal filed by respondents before Kerala High Court
- 2026: Appeal heard and decided by a Division Bench
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought return of 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹10 lakhs as marriage expenses for the daughter. The Family Court granted both reliefs in full.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether gold ornaments gifted at marriage are presumed to have been entrusted to the husband’s family for safekeeping, and whether the burden of proof shifts to the respondents to disprove possession when the wife’s testimony is credible and corroborated by circumstantial evidence.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to prove the source of funds for the 30 sovereigns, could not produce photographic negatives, and admitted some items in the photos were not gold. They contended that without documentary proof or witness corroboration, the claim was speculative and unenforceable.
For the Respondent/State
The petitioners relied on the testimony of PW1 (wife) and PW2 (brother), supported by photographs taken at the wedding. They emphasized that Section 14 of the Family Courts Act dispenses with strict rules of evidence, allowing courts to rely on credible oral testimony and common social practices. They argued that it is customary for brides to entrust non-daily ornaments to the husband’s family, and the respondents’ admission of 10 sovereigns supported the petitioner’s version.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the evidence through the lens of customary practice and practical reality in Indian marriages. It noted that while strict evidentiary rules do not bind Family Courts, credibility and plausibility remain essential. The Court observed that the respondents admitted the petitioner had approximately 10 sovereigns, which inherently contradicted their claim that she retained all ornaments.
"It is quite common that on the bride reaching the husband's house the ornaments which are not necessary except for the daily wear are entrusted to the husband's family for safe custody."
The Court accepted the petitioner’s testimony as credible, particularly given her admission that some items in the photographs were not gold - a detail that enhanced, rather than undermined, her reliability. The Court reasoned that if the petitioner had retained all 30 sovereigns, there would be no reason for the respondents to admit she had even 10. This admission, combined with social norms, created a prima facie presumption of entrustment.
The Court further held that the claim for marriage expenses was not exorbitant and that the father’s legal obligation to bear such expenses was undisputed. The Court then applied equitable reasoning: assuming 5 sovereigns were retained for daily wear, the remaining 15 were in the respondents’ possession.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed in part. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the return of 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments, not 30, as originally decreed. The award of ₹10 lakhs for marriage expenses was affirmed. The Family Court’s judgment was upheld except for the adjusted quantity of gold.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Entrustment Is Presumed, Not Proved
- Practitioners must now argue that gold ornaments gifted at marriage are presumed entrusted to the husband’s family unless proven otherwise
- The burden shifts to the respondents to show the ornaments were never handed over or were returned
- Oral testimony, even without documentary proof, is sufficient under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act
Social Custom as Legal Evidence
- Courts may rely on common social practices to infer facts where direct evidence is lacking
- Photographs, even unmarked, can support credibility if not disproved
- Admissions by respondents - even partial - can form the basis for inference of possession
Quantification Must Be Reasonable
- Courts will not mechanically accept claimed amounts; they will apply practical deduction based on testimony and norms
- Retention of a reasonable quantity for daily wear (e.g., 5 sovereigns) is a valid basis for reduction
- Arbitrary awards will be adjusted to reflect evidentiary reality
