In a significant ruling reinforcing women’s rights over stridhan, the Kerala High Court has held that courts cannot demand rigid legal proof akin to criminal trials in civil cases seeking return of gold ornaments and valuables gifted at the time of marriage. The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha allowed a matrimonial appeal filed by a woman challenging the dismissal of her claim by the Family Court, Ernakulam.
The Court observed:
“The inability to produce documentary evidence should not be a barrier to justice, especially in cases where the social and familial norms make such evidence hard to obtain. The Courts rely on the preponderance of probability to ensure that the legal system remains sensitive, fair and just.”
Background of the Case
The appellant (wife) had filed O.P. No.1301 of 2016 before the Family Court, Ernakulam seeking the return of 65.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments and household articles described in the petition. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 9 September 2010, and a child was born on 22 December 2011. She claimed that at the time of marriage, her parents gave her 63 sovereigns of gold ornaments and a gold chain weighing two sovereigns was given to the husband. Additionally, her relatives had gifted six sovereigns of gold. She alleged that the ornaments, barring those used for daily wear, remained in the custody of the respondent.
She contended that the ornaments were initially kept in an almirah in the couple’s bedroom but were later moved to the almirah in her in-laws’ room. After marital discord, she left the matrimonial home during her pregnancy and the ornaments were not returned.
The respondent-husband denied the claim and contended that the wife had taken all her ornaments with her when she left for her parental home. The Family Court, accepting the husband’s stand, dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner had not produced sufficient evidence to substantiate her claim.
Observations of the High Court
The High Court noted that the respondent did not dispute that the petitioner was given 63 sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage and that he received a two-sovereign chain from her parents. The Court also took note of the financial capacity of the petitioner’s parents and documentary proof (Ext. A4) showing utilisation of retirement benefits to purchase the gold.
Criticising the Family Court’s approach, the Bench held that insistence on documentary proof in such cases is unrealistic:
“The gold ornaments and cash given at the time of marriage to a bride are considered as women’s ‘Sreedhan’, which means her exclusive property… Due to private and often informal nature of such transfers, it becomes nearly impossible for women to produce documentary evidence.”
On the evidentiary standard, the Court said:
“Courts have to rely on the principle of preponderance of probabilities to deliver justice… It is not about certainty or eliminating all doubts, but rather about weighing evidence to see which side presents a more probable scenario.”
The Court also drew an adverse inference against the respondent for failing to step into the witness box to substantiate his defence. Relying on Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 1441, the Court held that the respondent’s omission to testify undermined his version.
The Bench also clarified that the Family Court erred in treating an email message (Ext. B1) as an admission by the petitioner. The High Court found that the message was a reproduction of allegations made by the mother-in-law and did not amount to an admission by the petitioner.
Decision
Concluding that the petitioner had succeeded in proving her entitlement to the return of 59.5 sovereigns of gold (excluding the additional six sovereigns she failed to prove), the Court passed the following order:
“Respondent shall return 59½ sovereigns of gold ornaments or its market value as on the date of return to the petitioner. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.”
However, the Court declined to grant relief regarding the return of household articles listed in ‘B Schedule’, as no evidence was led to prove their custody or misappropriation by the respondent.
