Courts can't demand strict proof when married woman seeks return of gold entrusted with in-laws: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court recently reiterated that courts should adopt a practical approach while dealing with petitions filed by married women for the return of gold ornaments that they may have entrusted to their in-laws at the matrimonial home.

A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice MB Snehalatha observed that newly married women often entrust their jewellery to their in-laws in good faith, without documentation or independent witnesses.

In such a scenario, it is impractical to expect the married women to keep receipts or provide strict proof of their handing over jewellery to their in-laws, it opined.

"A newly wedded woman would not be in a position to demand receipts or independent witnesses while handing over the jewellery to the husband or in-laws. Due to the domestic and informal nature of such transactions, she would not be in a position to produce documents or independent witnesses to prove entrustment," the Court explained.

Thus, when cases are filed by married women for the return of such gold ornaments, courts should not insist on strict legal proof, the Bench said. Rather, courts should evaluate such cases based on the principle of preponderance of probabilities (determine which version of events is more likely to be true), it reiterated.

"In such circumstances, strict proof beyond a reasonable doubt as is required in criminal law would lead to injustice, and therefore the Court has to adopt a pragmatic approach and decide the issue of entrustment on the principle of preponderance of probabilities," the Court held.

The Court made the observation while granting relief to a widow who sought the return of her gold ornaments from her in-laws.

The same Bench had made similar observations in an earlier case as well, when it underscored that courts cannot insist on rigid standards of proof while dealing with petitions by women for the return of stridhan (gold given to a woman by her family at the time of marriage).

In the present case, the widowed woman claimed that she wore 81 sovereigns of gold ornaments on her wedding day, including gold gifted by her parents, relatives, and her husband.

After the wedding, her husband left for a job abroad, while she continued residing in the matrimonial home with her in-laws. During this time, she was allegedly subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry by her in-laws.

She claimed that her gold ornaments were entrusted to her mother-in-law and brother-in-law (the appellants) for safekeeping.

Later, after the sudden death of her husband by suicide while abroad, she was allegedly pressured by her in-laws to leave the matrimonial home.

Despite repeated demands, she alleged that her gold ornaments were never returned to her by her in-laws.

Consequently, she approached the family court seeking the return of all gold or its equivalent value.

The family court partly allowed her plea, directing the in-laws to return 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Aggrieved by this decision, the in-laws filed an appeal before the High Court.

The High Court eventually set aside the Family Court's order against the brother-in-law. However, it upheld the family court's directions to the mother-in-law, ordering her to return 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments to her daughter-in-law.

The Court passed the ruling after considering the evidence presented before the family court, including a set of jewellery purchase bills which showed the purchase of 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments by the woman's father.

It also referred to the wedding photographs that showed the woman wearing substantial gold jewellery. The Court noted that the authenticity of these photos and bills was not seriously disputed by the in-laws.

It, however, accepted the brother-in-law's statement that he resided separately and observed that he was unlikely to have custody of the jewellery. It, therefore, set aside the family court's directions in so far as they related to the brother-in-law.

Senior Advocate TK Krishnanunni along with advocates Meena A, Vinod Ravindranath, MR Mini, Ashwin Sathyanath, KC Kiran, M Devesh, Anish Antony Anathazhath, and Thareeq Anver appeared for the petitioner (widow).

Advocates P Venugopal, TJ Maria Goretti, and Ferha Azeez represented the appellants (in-laws).

[Read Judgement]