'Common Knowledge That Bride's Gold Is Entrusted With Husband After Marriage': Kerala HC Declines Man's Appeal Against Return Of Wife's Gold

The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a husband's appeal against a Family Court's order asking him to return 40 sovereigns of his wife's gold ornaments after disbelieving his version that the gold included those purchased by him.

The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar remarked that in a lot of cases, a woman does not always have custody of all of her gold ornaments after marriage since it is entrusted to the husband or his close relatives.

“It is a matter of common knowledge that, upon reaching the matrimonial home after marriage, a bride may not be in a position to retain all her gold ornaments in her personal custody. Ordinarily, such ornaments are entrusted to the husband or his close relatives for safe keeping,” the Court observed.

In the present case, the appellant husband got married to his wife/respondent in 1999. According to the wife, she was given 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs. 50,000/- by her parents at the time of marriage. She was also provided with household article worth Rs. 30,000/- when she went to the matrimonial home.

She submitted that the cash and 40 sovereigns of gold were taken by her husband and his mother. The gold was sold for purchasing an auto rickshaw and for constructing a house. Later, she left the matrimonial home due to the ill-treatment by her husband.

The wife then came before the Family Court filing two petitions, seeking return of money and gold, and for past and future maintenance. The husband also filed a petition seeking return of gold ornaments and money that he had allegedly given to his wife.

The Family Court dismissed the husband's plea and allowed the wife's pleas. He was directed to return the gold, cash and the household articles belong to the wife. Past and future maintenance of Rs. 4000 per month was awarded to her. Challenging the common order, the husband approached the High Court.

The husband denied that he was entrusted any gold or money by the wife. He then contended that he gave her 16 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of Rs. 5 lakhs. He also denied his liability to pay maintenance.

The Court examined the evidence rendered during trials and noted that the wife's deposition was consistent with her claim. It also noticed that the wife's father was working abroad at the time of marriage while the husband was working as a coolie and earning between Rs. 150 to 250 every day.

Further, the Court remarked that the husband has not seriously disputed the quantity of gold worn at the time of marriage but he has only opposed the inclusion of certain ornaments, alleging that some were not genuine gold or some were purchased by him.

The Court felt that the wife's case was more probable since it is common that bride's gold and money are entrusted with husband and his relatives after marriage. It refused to interfere with the Family Court's findings on maintenance also.

The Court thus dismissed the husband's challenge to the Family Court's order. However, it felt that there was no need to impose liability of the husband's mother. Therefore, the mother was exonerated from liability.

Case No: Mat.Appeal No.1007/2015 and connected cases

Case Title: Nishad and Anr. v. Mumthaz Beegum and connected cases

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 105

Counsel for the appellants: K.M. Jamaludheen, Joby Varghese, Latha Prabhakaran

Counsel for the respondent: K.I. Sageer

Click to Read/Download Judgment