Courts Cannot Presume Bride Entrusts Gold To Husband Or In-Laws Based On Social Customs Alone: Kerala High Court

The Court observed:

“while considering claims by a wife for the return of gold or money that she had taken along with her to the matrimonial home at the time of her marriage, the court needs to look for proved facts - oral, documentary or circumstantial - from which an inference as regards entrustment of such gold or money to the husband or his relatives, and a misappropriation thereof by them, can be drawn. It is only when there exists such proved facts wherefrom an inference of entrustment can be drawn, that the initial burden of proof cast on the claimant gets discharged and the burden then shifts to the husband or his relatives to show that they had either returned the gold or money so entrusted with them to the claimant or utilised such gold or money at her instance or for her exclusive benefit. In the absence of any proved facts emerging from the evidence on record, the court cannot and must not embark upon a speculative exercise of drawing an inference based on its own perspective of what might have happened.”

Further, it also commented on various instances in which trial courts found entrustment of gold/cash even in the absence of any proved facts:

“For instance, the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Bexy Michael v. A.J. Michael – [(2010) 4 KHC 376 (DB)]] that state that it would be unreasonable for a court to insist on documentary evidence regarding ornaments and money that has changed hands at the time of marriage and that, while standards of a prudent man are paramount in the appreciation of evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, ground realities and general practices/customs cannot be ignored, have been relied upon to virtually abandon a search for available evidence on record, and rely only on the judge's singular perception of a general practice or custom to find an 'entrustment'. Such findings cannot be justified as being grounded on the trained intuitions of a judge because they would qualify merely as conjectures or speculations. In our view, even in such circumstances where the court bases its finding on general practices or customs, there must be evidence on record regarding the existence of such a practice or custom.”

The Court also remarked that past precedents assuming general practice of a woman handing over gold ornaments to her husband or in-laws after entering the matrimonial home is not reflective of the present reality:

“courts have to be sensitive to the changing needs of society and the realities of the day while appreciating the evidence on record, especially in matrimonial matters. For instance, past precedents that assume the existence of a general practice that a woman at the time of her marriage and entry into her matrimonial home would hand over her gold ornaments/Stridhan to her husband/mother-in-law for safekeeping may not be reflective of the present reality where many a well educated and financially independent bride retains control over all her material possessions even after entering the matrimonial home. The changed status of women in modern society, the extent of their emancipation and empowerment, the feminine perspective that they bring to an understanding of social customs and practices have all to be taken into account by an adjudicating court, inter alia by insisting on evidence being led in on these aspects by the parties to the matrimonial dispute.”

The Court was considering an appeal preferred by a husband and his father challenging a Family Court judgment that directed them to return Rs. 5 lakh cash, 80 sovereigns of gold ornaments and marriage expenses of Rs. 6,89,350 along with interests to the wife.

The wife had moved the Family Court seeking return of cash and gold ornaments entrusted to the appellants, who were her husband and her father-in-law. She had also sought Rs. 12 lakhs spent towards marriage and engagement expenses as well as compensation of Rs. 50,000.

According to the wife, the father-in-law demanded Rs. 5 lakhs towards marriage expenses at the time of fixation of marriage and her father had handed the same on the engagement day. Her case was that she was wearing 90 sovereigns of gold ornaments and was presented with a brand-new car at the time of marriage. 60 sovereigns were misappropriated by her husband under the guise of safe-keeping on the second month of marriage but some of it was kept inside the house at her insistence. However, after facing harassment for more dowry and insults from the husband's side, she demanded for return of her gold but the same was not done.

Within two months of the marriage, she returned to her parental home and later, her in-laws returned the car there. She, thereafter, approached the Family Court seeking return of the same and other reliefs claiming that the gold was sold.

The husband denied that Rs. 5 lakhs were demand by his father and stated that no such amount was given. He also disputed the quantity of gold as well as entrustment of the same. According to him, he had transferred money to the wife for her educational expenses even after she returned to the parental home.

After hearing the parties as well as appreciating the evidence on record, the Family Court passed the impugned judgment, directing return of cash, gold ornaments and marriage expenses. It rejected the prayer for alimony and compensation. Aggrieved, the husband and the father-in-law approached the High Court.

After hearing the parties, the Bench went on to make observations regarding the principles to be kept in mind when considering a wife's claims for return of gold or money. It was observed that in matrimonial matters, standard of proof required is 'preponderance of probabilities', and not 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

“the court must first look to the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties to first see whether there is anything therein that can lead the court to draw an inference as regards the existence of a fact. It is only if there are different inferences that can be drawn from the evidence on record that the next stage of determining the more probable of such inferences arises. More importantly, inferences from the evidence and circumstances must be carefully distinguished from conjectures or speculation. Since the mind is prone to take pleasure to adapt circumstances to one another and even in straining them a little to force them to form parts of one connected whole, there must be evidence - direct or circumstantial - to deduce necessary inferences in proof of the facts in issue. If there are no positive proved facts - oral, documentary or circumstantial - from which the inferences can be drawn, the method of inference would fail and what would remain is mere speculation or conjecture. Therefore, when drawing an inference of proof that a fact in issue is held to be established, there must be some material facts or circumstances on record from which such an inference can be drawn,” the Court clarified.

Looking at the facts of the present case, the Court noted that there were several oral testimonies as well as documentary evidence regarding handing over of Rs. 5 lakhs cash to the father-in-law even though there was evidence given by the husband that no demand was made. Therefore, it felt it appropriate not to interfere with the Family Court's finding in this regard.

Next, to decide on the claim for return of gold ornaments, the Court considered the question as to whether there was any evidence regarding entrustment of the same to the husband or his family.

It was noted that the wife had led in evidence to show that the husband had pledged 242.9 grams of gold and the amount raised was transferred to his account in August 2019, about 2 weeks after the marriage. Though the husband had stated that he had pledged gold ornaments belonging to his sister, even as per his statement, that was in the year 2018.

The Court found that there was only evidence regarding misappropriation of 242.9 gms of gold and there is no evidence regarding entrustment of gold except for the oral evidence. Thus, it limited the wife's entitlement to return of only 242.9 gm of gold instead of 80 sovereigns as found by the Family Court.

Finally, the Court considered whether the wife is entitled to get the expenses for the marriage. It was of the view that it would be justifiable to saddle the husband's family alone with the marriage expenses.

“This is not a case where the marriage was declared as null or void. On the other hand, there was a marital relationship that was terminated legally. Marriage expenses are common to both parties and the option is on each of the parties to decide how and what should be the level of extravaganza for a marriage ceremony. It has also come out in evidence that the marriage was conducted in a posh manner. As the option to decide the celebrations in connection with a marriage is with the parties themselves, there is no reason to award any amount under the said head to either of the parties since even the 1st appellant [husband] and his family would have spent considerable money towards marriage expenses,” it added.

Thus, the Court allowed the appeal in part and held that the husband's family is liable to return only Rs. 5 lakhs cash as well as 242.9 gm/30 sovereigns of gold.

Case No: Mat. Appeal No. 1095 of 2024

Case Title: Vinu K.S. and Anr. v. Veena Viswan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 370

Counsel for the appellants: S. Sreedev, Enoch David Simon Joel, Rony Jose, Leo Lukose, Karol Mathews Sebastian Alencherry, Derick Mathai Saji, Karan Scaria Abraham, Ittoop Joy Thattil

Counsel for the respondents: T.S. Maya (Thiyadil), K.A. Sunitha, K. Rajeev (Thiyadil)

Click to Read/Download Judgment