Wife seeking return of gold given at marriage from estranged husband on the basis of photographs

Kerala High Court Upholds Wife's Claim for Return of 15 Sovereigns of Gold from Estranged Husband. Minor discrepancies in the quantity of gold claimed do not invalidate the petitioner's right to recovery; claims against other respondents dismissed due to lack of evidence.

In a significant judgment by the Kerala High Court, the division bench comprising Mr. Sathish Ninan and P. Krishna Kumar, JJ., delivered a verdict favoring A.P. Ushakumari in her appeal concerning the retrieval of gold ornaments from her estranged husband, V.C. Radhakrishnan. The court granted a decree for the recovery of 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments or their equivalent value from the first respondent, while dismissing claims against the second and third respondents due to insufficient evidence.

The petitioner, A.P. Ushakumari, initially filed an original petition claiming the return of 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments, along with utensils and cash given during the marriage to the respondents. The Family Court had previously dismissed her claims, citing inconsistencies in the quantity of gold ornaments claimed and lack of evidence for the utensils and money.

Upon appeal, the Kerala High Court re-evaluated the evidence presented, which included marriage photographs and the petitioner's deposition. The court found the petitioner's claim of possessing 20 sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage probable, despite minor discrepancies in the stated quantity. The court reasoned that such variations were negligible given the overall evidence supporting the petitioner's assertions.

While the petitioner's claim against the first respondent remained uncontested, the court highlighted that respondents two and three could not be held liable due to the absence of concrete evidence proving the entrustment of gold ornaments to them. The court also noted the improbability of the petitioner having entrusted all her gold to the respondents, suggesting she retained a portion for personal use.

However, the court rejected the claims for utensils and the sum of Rs. 50,000 due to a complete lack of supporting evidence, affirming the Family Court's earlier decision on these aspects.

The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of substantiating claims with solid evidence in family law cases, particularly when they involve significant assets.

Bottom line:

Claim for return of gold ornaments and money - Minor discrepancies in quantity of gold ornaments claimed cannot negate the claim - Entrustment of gold with respondents must be substantiated with evidence - Decree granted for 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value from the first respondent, while dismissing claims against other respondents.

Statutory Provisions: Not explicitly stated in the judgment, but related to Family Law and the recovery of matrimonial assets.

A.P.Ushakumari v. V.C.Radhakrishnan, (Kerala)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2791900