The Kerala High Court, in Mat.Appeal No. 773 of 2020, has emphasized that courts must adopt a practical and realistic approach when adjudicating petitions by married women seeking the return of gold ornaments entrusted to in-laws, recognizing the domestic realities of such familial arrangements.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha partially allowed the appeal filed by the mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the petitioner, upholding the Family Court, Tirur’s direction that the mother-in-law return 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments but setting aside the liability of the brother-in-law.
Background of the Case
The petitioner had married Pradeep on 25 April 2012, when he was employed abroad. She claimed that on the wedding day, she wore 81 sovereigns of gold: 53 sovereigns purchased by her father, 21 sovereigns gifted by relatives, and 6 sovereigns gifted by Pradeep at the time of engagement. After the marriage, Pradeep returned overseas but tragically passed away on 16 January 2013.
The petitioner alleged that during her stay at the matrimonial home, she entrusted all her gold ornaments (except the thali chain) to her in-laws for safekeeping. After her husband’s death, she continued staying in the matrimonial home for about 15 days but was eventually forced to leave under pressure. Despite repeated requests, the ornaments were not returned, prompting her to file the petition.
The respondents denied receiving or misappropriating the gold and contended that the petitioner retained all ornaments. They also argued that the petitioner’s father lacked the financial capacity to provide 81 sovereigns and produced a bank pledge record (Ext.X1) suggesting that her father had taken a gold loan in 2014.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court held that the evidence—including Ext.P2 series bills from Malabar Gold and Diamonds showing the purchase of 53 sovereigns, and Ext.P3 wedding photographs—supported the petitioner’s version.
The Bench observed that in Indian households, “the entrustment of gold ornaments by a bride to her husband or in-laws occurs in a setting of familial trust within the four walls of the matrimonial home.” It emphasized that a newly married woman cannot be expected to demand receipts or independent witnesses for such domestic entrustments, nor anticipate legal disputes or maintain documentary proof.
The Court underscored that strict standards of criminal proof would result in injustice in such cases and thus, “the Court has to adopt a pragmatic approach and decide the issue of entrustment on the principle of preponderance of probabilities.”
Final Decision
The High Court concluded that the petitioner had successfully proven that she entrusted 53 sovereigns of gold to her mother-in-law. It held that the brother-in-law, who lived separately, was not liable. The Court ordered:
- The mother-in-law (second respondent) shall return 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the petitioner.
- The mother-in-law is also liable to pay the cost of the proceedings.
The appeal was thus allowed in part, reflecting the Court’s nuanced and practical approach to matrimonial disputes concerning entrusted gold.
