Wife can claim return of ornaments from husband after divorce only if she can prove husband was entrusted with it: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently reiterated that a wife can seek the return of gold ornaments worn during the wedding from her husband after divorce only if it is proved that he had been entrusted with them [Binitha v Hareendran]..A division bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and PG Ajithkumar added that keeping the wife's gold ornaments in a locker maintained in the wife's name would not amount to entrusting such ornaments with the husband. .These observations were made while dismissing an appeal filed by a woman challenging a family court order that declined her claim for the recovery of some money and gold ornaments, which she claimed was given to her estranged husband at the time of their marriage. .“Only if the fact of entrustment of the gold ornaments to the respondent (husband) is proved, the appellant (wife) can claim the return of such ornaments," the High Court said..The Court reiterated the position in the case of Binod v. Sophy that "the wife while making a claim for gold ornaments will have to prove the entrustment of gold ornaments.".The bench also referred to the reasoning adopted in Abubakkker Labba and another v. Shameena K. B. and another, wherein the High Court had observed that,"Merely on the evidence that the bride had worn gold ornaments, at the time of marriage, it cannot be held that the ornaments, which were worn at the time of marriage, were entrusted to the father and mother of the bridegroom.".By way of background, the appellant had married the respondent-husband in 2002. In 2010, the husband filed for divorce.The woman alleged that ₹5 lakh was entrusted by her father with her husband on her betrothal. Further, she claimed that she had worn 100 sovereigns worth of gold ornaments during her wedding, which was also entrusted with her husband.Moreover, after the marriage, the husband was allegedly given ₹1 lakh by the appellant's father to avail of a locker facility, where the gold ornaments of the appellant were kept. It was also claimed that ₹2 lakh was given by the appellant's father to her husband to purchase property in the appellant's name. All the gold ornaments were eventually appropriated by her husband, the Court was told.The family court had dismissed her plea for returning the money, along with the 100 sovereigns of gold allegedly worn during the wedding, citing lack of evidence to support these claims..The High Court relied on the observations in another case, Leelamma N.P v. M.A.Moni, to hold that if it had been proved that gold ornaments were entrusted by the wife with her husband, then the burden would have been on the husband to prove as to what happened to those gold ornaments. .Once such entrustment is made, a trust gets created and the husband and his family would be liable to return such ornaments back to the wife, the bench added while referring to the case of Rajesh PP and another v. Deepthi PR..A woman has a right file a suit to recover money and gold from those (husband or in-laws) who hold such dowry in trust, if such persons have not transferred such trust property in favour of the woman, the Court observed further, while referring to various other case laws. .However, in the present case, the High Court found that there was little evidence to support the allegation that the gold ornaments were entrusted with her husband or her in-laws. .The Court noted that the ornaments were kept in the locker availed in the appellant-wife's own name..The High Court, therefore, agreed with the family court that there was insufficient evidence to support the appellant's claims."The finding of the family court that there is lack of evidence to prove the entrustment of gold ornaments to the respondent is therefore not liable to be interfered with," the Court concluded..The appeal was, consequently, dismissed. .The appellant was represented by advocates C Rajendran and KR Ranjith. Advocates B Bindu, CS Dias, PK Dhanya, NK Subramanian and TV Sreejith represented the respondent..[Read Judgment]