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

The Kerala High Court has held that courts adjudicating matrimonial disputes cannot presume that a bride entrusted her gold ornaments or money to her husband or in-laws merely on the basis of prevailing social customs or general practices. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 371]Observing that assumptions drawn from past precedents may no longer reflect contemporary realities, the Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. underscored that claims for return of gold or cash must be founded on proved facts—oral, documentary or circumstantial—from which entrustment and subsequent misappropriation can reasonably be inferred.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...

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

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

K. Salma Jennath

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

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers