Reshmi Radhakrishnan v. Vinod

Read Judgment : https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/mrlz/

Citation: 2025 KER 32891
Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Judges: Devan Ramachandran, J. & M.B. Snehalatha, J.
Date of Judgment: 11 April 2025
Citation: Mat. Appeal No. 291 of 2020

Matrimonial Appeal – Return of Gold Ornaments – Family Court dismissed petitioner’s claim for return of 65½ sovereigns of gold ornaments and household articles – High Court allowed appeal in part.

Held

Petitioner entitled to return of 59½ sovereigns of gold ornaments or its market value, as evidence established ornaments were given by her parents and retained by respondent – No evidence to support claim for 6 sovereigns gifted by relatives or household articles – Preponderance of probability applied due to lack of documentary evidence, considering social norms and practical difficulties in proving ownership – Respondent’s failure to testify warranted adverse inference – Appeal partly allowed, parties to bear own costs.

Background:

  • The appeal arises from the dismissal by the Family Court, Ernakulam, of the petitioner’s claim (O.P. No. 1301/2016) for the return of 65½ sovereigns of gold ornaments and household articles.
  • The marriage was solemnized on 09.09.2010, and a child was born on 22.12.2011.
  • The petitioner alleged that at the time of marriage, her parents gave her 63 sovereigns of gold ornaments and a 2-sovereign gold chain to the respondent, with an additional 6 sovereigns gifted by relatives. She claimed the ornaments (except those for daily wear) were retained by the respondent.
  • The respondent denied possessing the ornaments, alleging the petitioner took them to her parental home during pregnancy.
  • The Family Court dismissed the petition, finding insufficient evidence to support the petitioner’s claims.

Issues

  1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the return of 65½ sovereigns of gold ornaments.
  2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the return of household articles listed in the petition.
  3. Whether the Family Court’s judgment warrants interference based on the evidence and legal principles.

Arguments

  • Petitioner:
    • Testified that 63 sovereigns were given by her parents, 2 sovereigns as a chain to the respondent, and 6 sovereigns by relatives, totaling 65½ sovereigns.
    • Claimed the ornaments were initially kept in the couple’s bedroom almirah but were moved to the respondent’s parents’ bedroom on the third day of marriage (12.09.2010) for safekeeping.
    • Supported by her father’s testimony (PW2) and documentary evidence (Ext.A4) showing financial capacity to purchase the ornaments.
    • Argued that gold ornaments constitute “Sreedhan” (exclusive property of the wife) and that social norms make documentary proof difficult, urging reliance on preponderance of probability.
    • Denied taking the ornaments to her parental home during pregnancy, asserting it was improbable given the context of her visit for pregnancy care.
    • Contested the respondent’s reliance on Ext.B1 (a message to her sister-in-law), arguing it reflected allegations by her mother-in-law, not an admission.
  • Respondent:
    • Denied possessing or misappropriating the petitioner’s ornaments.
    • Claimed the petitioner took her ornaments to her parental home during pregnancy.
    • Relied on Ext.B1, alleging it was an admission by the petitioner that she took the ornaments.
    • Did not testify or offer himself for cross-examination, providing no explanation for his absence.

Findings

  1. Gold Ornaments:
    • The Court found that the petitioner established, through her testimony (PW1), her father’s testimony (PW2), and Ext.A4, that her parents gave her 63 sovereigns and the respondent a 2-sovereign chain, totaling 59½ sovereigns in her custody (excluding daily wear items).
    • No evidence substantiated the claim of 6 sovereigns gifted by relatives, so the total claim was reduced to 59½ sovereigns.
    • The respondent’s failure to dispute the gifting of 63 sovereigns and the chain in his counter statement, coupled with his absence from the witness box, warranted an adverse inference against him (relying on Iswar Bhai C.Patel v. Harihar Behera and Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao).
    • Ext.B1 was misinterpreted by the Family Court; it was not an admission but a reference to allegations by the respondent’s mother, thus unreliable.
    • The Court applied the principle of preponderance of probability, recognizing that gold given as “Sreedhan” is often retained by the husband’s family without documentation, making rigid proof impractical. Social and familial norms were considered, emphasizing the need for courts to deliver justice despite evidentiary challenges.
    • The petitioner’s claim that she did not take the ornaments during her pregnancy visit was deemed probable, as it was unlikely she would carry them for a temporary visit for pregnancy care.
  2. Household Articles:
    • The petitioner provided no evidence regarding the location or misappropriation of the B schedule household articles.
    • The Court found no basis to grant relief for these items due to lack of testimony or proof.
  3. Family Court’s Error:
    • The Family Court erred in dismissing the petition based on:
      • Misinterpretation of Ext.B1 as an admission.
      • Overemphasis on discrepancies in the total weight of ornaments (between the petition and Ext.A1 photo), which were not material.
      • Failure to apply preponderance of probability and consider social realities surrounding “Sreedhan.”

Decision

  • The appeal was allowed in part.
  • The respondent was directed to return 59½ sovereigns of gold ornaments or their market value as of the date of return to the petitioner.
  • The claim for household articles was dismissed due to lack of evidence.
  • Parties were directed to bear their respective costs.

Legal Principles

  • Sreedhan: Gold and cash given to a bride at marriage are her exclusive property, often retained by the husband’s family without documentation.
  • Preponderance of Probability: In civil cases, especially where social norms limit documentary evidence, courts must weigh evidence to determine the more plausible scenario, prioritizing justice over rigid formalities.
  • Adverse Inference: Failure of a party to testify or offer themselves for cross-examination may lead to an inference that their claims are untrue.

Significance

The judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in addressing practical difficulties faced by women in reclaiming “Sreedhan” due to informal transfers and lack of documentation. By applying preponderance of probability, the Court ensures a sensitive and just approach to matrimonial disputes, particularly in cases involving gold ornaments.

Counsel:

  • For Appellant: M.S. Unnikrishnan, V.S. Sreejith, K. Sunil, Rinu S. Aswan, M. Ardra Krishnan, Aleena Maria Jose, Susan Jacob.
  • For Respondent: Santheep Ankarath, J. Ramkumar.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

  1. What was the primary issue in Mat.A No.291 of 2020 before the High Court of Kerala?
    a) Divorce proceedings between the petitioner and respondent
    b) Custody of the child born in the marriage
    c) Return of gold ornaments and household articles claimed by the petitioner
    d) Maintenance claims by the petitioner
    Answer: c) Return of gold ornaments and household articles claimed by the petitioner
  2. What was the total weight of gold ornaments the petitioner initially claimed from the respondent?
    a) 59½ sovereigns
    b) 63 sovereigns
    c) 65½ sovereigns
    d) 69 sovereigns
    Answer: c) 65½ sovereigns
  3. Why did the High Court reduce the petitioner’s claim to 59½ sovereigns of gold ornaments?
    a) The respondent proved he returned 6 sovereigns
    b) The petitioner failed to prove the gifting of 6 sovereigns by relatives
    c) The Family Court’s judgment was upheld in full
    d) The petitioner withdrew the claim for 6 sovereigns
    Answer: b) The petitioner failed to prove the gifting of 6 sovereigns by relatives
  4. Which legal principle did the High Court apply to evaluate the petitioner’s claim for gold ornaments?
    a) Beyond reasonable doubt
    b) Preponderance of probability
    c) Strict liability
    d) Res ipsa loquitur
    Answer: b) Preponderance of probability
  5. What was the High Court’s reasoning for drawing an adverse inference against the respondent?
    a) The respondent provided false documentary evidence
    b) The respondent failed to testify or offer himself for cross-examination
    c) The respondent admitted to misappropriating the ornaments
    d) The respondent’s counsel withdrew from the case
    Answer: b) The respondent failed to testify or offer himself for cross-examination
  6. What was the outcome regarding the petitioner’s claim for household articles (B schedule)?
    a) The respondent was ordered to return all household articles
    b) The claim was dismissed due to lack of evidence
    c) The claim was partially allowed
    d) The court deferred the decision to a later date
    Answer: b) The claim was dismissed due to lack of evidence
  7. What is “Sreedhan” as described in the judgment?
    a) Property jointly owned by the husband and wife
    b) Exclusive property of the wife, such as gold given at marriage
    c) Dowry demanded by the husband’s family
    d) Household articles purchased after marriage
    Answer: b) Exclusive property of the wife, such as gold given at marriage
  8. Why did the High Court find the Family Court’s reliance on Ext.B1 erroneous?
    a) Ext.B1 was a forged document
    b) Ext.B1 was an admission by the petitioner
    c) Ext.B1 referred to allegations by the respondent’s mother, not an admission
    d) Ext.B1 was irrelevant to the case
    Answer: c) Ext.B1 referred to allegations by the respondent’s mother, not an admission
  9. What evidence supported the petitioner’s claim that her parents gave her 63 sovereigns of gold?
    a) A written receipt from the jeweler
    b) Testimony of the petitioner (PW1), her father (PW2), and Ext.A4 (fixed deposit document)
    c) A video recording of the marriage ceremony
    d) The respondent’s admission in court
    Answer: b) Testimony of the petitioner (PW1), her father (PW2), and Ext.A4 (fixed deposit document)
  10. What was the final order of the High Court regarding the gold ornaments?
    a) The respondent was to return 65½ sovereigns or their market value
    b) The respondent was to return 59½ sovereigns or their market value
    c) The respondent was to pay a fixed sum without returning ornaments
    d) The claim was fully dismissed
    Answer: b) The respondent was to return 59½ sovereigns or their market value

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What was the main claim made by the petitioner in Mat.A No.291 of 2020?
The petitioner sought the return of 65½ sovereigns of gold ornaments and household articles (B schedule) from the respondent, alleging that the gold was given by her parents and relatives at the time of marriage and retained by the respondent.

2. Why did the Family Court dismiss the petitioner’s original petition?
The Family Court dismissed the petition because it found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove her claim for the return of gold ornaments and household articles, relying on Ext.B1 as an admission and noting discrepancies in the claimed weight of ornaments.

3. What was the High Court’s reasoning for allowing the appeal in part?
The High Court found that the petitioner established, through testimony and documentary evidence (Ext.A4), that 59½ sovereigns of gold ornaments were given by her parents and retained by the respondent. The Court applied the preponderance of probability, considering the lack of documentary proof due to social norms, and drew an adverse inference against the respondent for not testifying. However, the claim for 6 sovereigns gifted by relatives and household articles was dismissed due to lack of evidence.

4. What is the significance of the “preponderance of probability” principle in this case?
The principle was used to evaluate the petitioner’s claim in the absence of documentary evidence, which is often unavailable in cases involving “Sreedhan” due to informal transfers. The Court weighed the evidence to determine that the petitioner’s version was more probable, ensuring justice despite evidentiary challenges.

5. What is “Sreedhan,” and how does it relate to this case?
“Sreedhan” refers to the exclusive property of a bride, such as gold or cash given at marriage. In this case, the petitioner’s gold ornaments were considered “Sreedhan,” and the Court recognized that such property is often retained by the husband’s family without documentation, necessitating a flexible evidentiary approach.

6. Why was the respondent’s reliance on Ext.B1 rejected by the High Court?
Ext.B1, a message sent by the petitioner to her sister-in-law, was misinterpreted by the Family Court as an admission that she took her ornaments. The High Court clarified that it referred to allegations made by the respondent’s mother, not an admission, and was therefore not reliable evidence.

7. Why was an adverse inference drawn against the respondent?
The respondent did not testify or offer himself for cross-examination, providing no explanation for his absence. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the High Court drew an adverse inference that his claims were untrue, strengthening the petitioner’s case.

8. Why was the claim for household articles rejected?
The petitioner provided no evidence, either in her petition or testimony, regarding the location or misappropriation of the household articles. The lack of proof led the High Court to dismiss this claim.

9. How did the High Court address the lack of documentary evidence for the gold ornaments?
The Court acknowledged that social and familial norms often prevent women from obtaining written records for “Sreedhan.” It relied on the petitioner’s and her father’s testimony, corroborated by Ext.A4, and applied preponderance of probability to deliver justice without insisting on rigid proof.

10. What was the final outcome of the case?
The High Court partly allowed the appeal, directing the respondent to return 59½ sovereigns of gold ornaments or their market value as of the date of return. The claim for household articles was dismissed, and both parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
  • ASF Buildtech v. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co.
    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 7, 11, 16, 21, 23, 37 – Power of Arbitral Tribunal to Implead Non-Signatories – Group of Companies Doctrine – Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal – Notice under Section 21 – Competence-Competence Principle.
  • Analysis of the Drugs and Cosmetics (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2025
    The Drugs and Cosmetics (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2025, notified by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), provide a framework for compounding certain offences committed under the Act.
  • Res Judicata in Criminal Proceedings
    The principle of res judicata, derived from the Latin maxim res judicata pro veritate accipitur (a matter adjudged is taken as true), is a fundamental doctrine in civil law that prevents the re-litigation of issues already decided between the same parties.
  • Krishna Kumar Kedia v. Union of India
    Penal Code, 1860, Sections 407, 420, 465, 471 – Forgery and Misappropriation – Conviction Upheld – Sentence Reduced.
  • Shenbagavalli v. Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District
    Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Essential Ingredients – Absence of Proximity and Instigation – Quashing of Chargesheet.
  • Drugs and Cosmetics (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2025
    These rules may be called the Drugs and Cosmetics (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2025.
  • Kerala State Elderly Commission Act, 2025
    An Act to constitute an Elderly Commission for giving guidelines in matters related to the welfare and protection of the elderly and to enable their rehabilitation and to undertake and carry out schemes and activities necessary for making use of their skills and experience for utilizing it for the general public and to ensure the protection of rights and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
  • Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Welfare Association v. Union of India
    Land Allotment Dispute – Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975
  • Central Bureau of Investigation v. Surendra Patwa
    Administrative and criminal proceedings operate independently; procedural lapses in former do not nullify latter.
  • Principal Chief Conservator of Forest v. Suresh Mathew
    Judicial review in contractual matters limited to cases of mala fides, arbitrariness, or irrationality – Decision to re-tender due to Covid-19 restrictions affecting contractor participation held bona fide and in public interest – No fundamental right to renewal of contractor registration – Government’s discretion to protect financial interests by inviting fresh tenders upheld.