The Kerala High Court has affirmed that a married woman cannot be expected to provide strict legal proof for gold ornaments handed over to her in-laws at the time of marriage. Recognizing the deeply personal and informal nature of such entrustments within Indian households, the Court adopted a realistic and sensitive view.
The judgment came from a Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha while partly allowing a matrimonial appeal in the case titled X & Anr v Y (Mat. A No. 773/2020), which challenged a Family Court order that directed the return of gold ornaments to the petitioner.
“In most Indian households, the entrustment of gold ornaments by a bride to her in-laws occurs within the four walls of the matrimonial home. A newly wedded woman would not be in a position to demand receipts or independent witnesses while handing over the jewelry,” the Court noted.
Read also:- Law Student’s Petition Over Ram Janmbhoomi Exam Question Dismissed by Rajasthan HC
The petitioner’s husband, Pradeep, tragically died by suicide abroad shortly after their wedding in April 2012. Following his death, the petitioner was allegedly pressured to leave her matrimonial home. She claimed her gold ornaments—81 sovereigns in total—were taken by the in-laws under the guise of safekeeping but were never returned.
She supported her claim with photographs from the wedding and a series of bills showing the purchase of 53 sovereigns of gold from Malabar Gold and Diamonds, Tirur, a day before the wedding. The High Court accepted these documents and acknowledged the reality that women are often unable to provide direct evidence for such informal entrustments.
“A woman, being a family member, cannot be expected to anticipate a future legal dispute and create documentary evidence in a household where she is expected to conform, trust and remain silent, especially in the early stage of her marriage,” the Court remarked.
Read also:- Rajasthan HC Grants Final Bail Extension to Asaram Bapu Till August 12 in 2013 Rape Case
The Court emphasized that applying the standard of strict proof beyond reasonable doubt—as required in criminal cases—would lead to injustice in such domestic matters. Instead, it chose a preponderance of probabilities approach, which is more appropriate in civil proceedings.
The respondents contended that the petitioner had retained her jewelry and also questioned her family's financial capacity to provide such a large quantity of gold. However, the Court found no substantial evidence to support this claim. It also rejected the assertion that the petitioner’s father had pledged the jewelry, noting that the gold pledged did not match the jewelry listed in the petition.
Importantly, the Court accepted that the brother-in-law (1st appellant) had been residing separately and was not likely to have had custody of the gold. Therefore, the appeal was allowed only in part.
“The mother-in-law has no plausible and acceptable explanation as to what happened to the 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments,” the Court observed.
As a result, the High Court directed the mother-in-law (2nd appellant) to return 53 sovereigns of gold to the petitioner and also held her liable for the legal costs.
Case Title: X & Anr v Y
Case No: Mat. A 773/2020
Counsel for Appellants - P Venugopal, T J Maria Goretti, Ferha Azeez
Counsel for Respondents - T Krishnanunni (Sr), Meena A, Vinod Ravindranath, M R Mini, Ashwin Sathyanath, K C Kiran, M Devesh, Anish Antony Anathazhath, Thareeq Anver