October 14, 2025 - The Kerala High Court on Tuesday partially modified a Family Court ruling in a long-drawn marital dispute between Noorsha and Shanitha, directing the husband to return 38½ sovereigns of gold and pay ₹7 lakh to his estranged wife, while upholding her right to monthly maintenance. The division bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar delivered the verdict, balancing the evidence placed on record with what they called a "reasonable and probable" inference from the parties conduct.
Background
The couple married in April 1996 and had three children. According to Shanitha, she had received 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments from her parents, which were later entrusted to her husband for safekeeping. Over time, she alleged, he misappropriated the ornaments and also borrowed large sums from her father - ₹2 lakh in 2008 and ₹5 lakh in 2011 - supposedly for building a house.
However, the marriage soured, leading to police complaints and mediation efforts. During one such mediation, an agreement (Ext.A2) was drawn up in which Shanitha accepted a reduced claim of 38½ sovereigns to purchase peace, as she later testified.
The Family Court in Thrissur, in 2016, ruled mostly in her favour, directing Noorsha to return 75 sovereigns of gold, repay ₹7 lakh, and pay maintenance to his wife and children. Noorsha appealed the decision, arguing that there was no proof she ever possessed 75 sovereigns of gold, and that the Family Court had overlooked key evidence.
Court's Observations
Justice Krishna Kumar, writing for the Bench, went deep into the inconsistencies in the evidence and the agreement. The court noted that while the wife claimed coercion during mediation, none of the mediators supported that version.
The judges also examined marriage photographs (Exhibit A1) to verify her claim about the ornaments.
"On perusal of Ext.A1 photographs, the quantity of gold ornaments worn by the respondent appears to be around 40 sovereigns only," the Bench observed.
Rejecting her explanation for agreeing to a lower quantity, the judges said the inference from photographs and the signed agreement together cannot be brushed aside.
"The appellant is bound to return 38½ sovereigns of gold ornaments," the court held, observing that the Family Court had erred in accepting oral testimony alone.
On the monetary claims, however, the court found that Shanitha's version was backed by bank records and witness statements.
The Bench noted, "The trial court, after meticulously analysing the bank statements and in light of the deposits made by the appellant during the relevant period, rightly concluded that the claim made by the respondent is more probable."
Accordingly, the High Court upheld the Family Court’s direction to return ₹7,00,000 and ₹2,00,000 towards household articles.
Case Details: Noorsha vs Shanitha
Case Numbers:
- Mat. Appeal No. 1034 of 2016
- RP (FC) No. 37 of 2017
Date of Judgment: 14 October 2025 (Tuesday)
