P. Krishna Kumar, J.

1. The appellant is the petitioner in O.P. No.736/2018 on the files of the Family Court, Mavelikkara. The said petition was filed, inter alia, seeking recovery of money and gold ornaments from the respondents, who are the husband and in- laws of the appellant. By the judgment impugned in this appeal, the Family Court allowed the petition in part.

2. For the ease of reference, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in the original petition. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnised on 22.05.2011. The petitioner alleged that her parents had given her 101 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage, out of which 85.375 sovereigns were misappropriated by the respondents for their personal needs. It was further alleged that, at the demand of the respondents, the petitioner’s father entrusted a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- to the second respondent towards her family share. It was also alleged that the mother of the petitioner had subscribed to the chit fund conducted by the second respondent and that an amount of Rs.5,37,500/- was due to her in that regard, which was misappropriated by the second respondent by adjusting it against the family share of the petitioner.

3. By way of amendment to the petition, it was further claimed by the petitioner that, on 04.09.2014 the respondents managed to obtain a sum of Rs.10,25,488/- from the Fixed Deposit account maintained by the petitioner with the Pathiyoor Farmers Service Co-operative Bank. It was also claimed that on 24.04.2014, the petitioner’s father joined as a partner in a firm by name “Vijaya Financiers”, conducted by the first and second respondents, and deposited a sum of Rs.1,24,000/- in the said firm with the objective of securing the future needs of the petitioner. The petitioner also claimed recovery of 16 sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to her minor daughter, alleging that the said ornaments were also misappropriated by the respondents. Accordingly, the petitioner raised a total claim for Rs.1,24,15,075/-.

4. The respondents stoutly resisted the petition contending that the allegations were false. They denied the entrustment of gold and money, as well as the alleged misappropriation of amounts pertaining to the chit fund and the bank account of the petitioner. According to them, the petitioner’s mother had two chits and had received the entire chit amounts, but defaulted repayment of 27 installments. They further contended that the petitioner was included in the partnership business only for namesake, being the wife of the first respondent, and that there was no contribution to the partnership business as alleged.

5. The above case was tried jointly with petitions filed by the husband for divorce and the custody of the minor child. The evidence in this case consisted of the oral testimony of PW1 to PW3 and RW1, and documentary evidence marked as Exts.A1 to A22, B1 to B16, and X1 and X2. Upon an elaborate appreciation of the evidence, the trial court partly allowed the petition and directed the respondents to return 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments or, in the alternative, to pay a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6%. The other claims raised by the petitioner were disallowed.

6. We have heard the petitioner, who appeared as party- in-person, and Sri. M. Kiranlal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

7. The quantity of gold ornaments worn by the petitioner at the time of marriage is to be examined at first. Ext.X1 is the Marriage Register of the SNDP Yogam, Peringala North Branch, for the period 2003–2012, which was produced before the court by summoning PW2, the Secretary of the said branch. Page No.40 of Ext.X1 pertains to the marriage of the petitioner and the first respondent. In Column No.10, the quantity of gold worn by the petitioner at the time of marriage is recorded as 800 grams. However, there is a correction in the said entry. The figure “600 gms” was written above “800 gms”, but the same was scored off and the correction was purportedly authenticated with a counter sign. PW2 deposed that the correct figure is 800 grams and that the correction was made by one P.K. Sadanandan, the then President, who affixed his full signature endorsing the correction. He further stated that the said P.K. Sadanandan is no more. PW2 also testified that Ext.X1 bears the signatures of the petitioner and her father and the first respondent and his father. According to PW2, the quantity of gold worn by the bride would be entered in the Marriage Register based on the information furnished by the bride, bridegroom, and their parents, and such entries would be made in their presence.

8. It is relevant to note that even during extensive cross-examination of PW2 by the respondents, the genuineness of Ext.X1 was never challenged. Though it was elicited that the name of the person who made the correction and affixed the countersignature was not specifically mentioned in the Register, and that it was the duty of the Secretary to maintain the Register, there is nothing material to discard the evidentiary value of Ext.X1 or the oral testimony of PW2. It is true that Ext.X1 contains corrections with respect to the quantity of gold. We perused the original Register. The figure “800” is written both in words and figures, and the correction is countersigned. There is no dispute that the parties had no access to the Register and that it is regularly maintained by the SNDP Yogam Branch in the course of its usual functions. Therefore, we find no reason to discard the evidence of PW2.

9. Apart from this, the petitioner has produced a compact disc containing her marriage photographs, along with a photograph marked as Ext.A17. From Ext.A17 and the photograph appearing on the cover of the compact disc, the quantity of gold ornaments worn by the petitioner at the time of marriage appears consistent with the entry in Ext.X1. The trial court, therefore, was not justified in holding that the quantity of gold worn by the petitioner at the time of marriage was only 600 grams. The said finding rested solely on the correction noted in Ext.X1, which, for the reasons already stated, we find to be genuine. Thus, we conclude that at the time of marriage, the petitioner possessed 800 grams of gold, which is equivalent to 100 sovereigns.

10. The petitioner admittedly retained nearly 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments. From the evidence available on records, there is no difficulty in inferring that the remaining gold ornaments were in the possession of the respondents. The direction to return 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments or their value has already been complied with by the respondents, and they have not challenged that finding. It is, therefore, probable that the respondents retained 85 sovereigns of gold ornaments, as claimed by the petitioner. Consequently, they are bound to return an additional 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the petitioner.

11. It is settled law that, when a court orders recovery of gold ornaments or in the alternative their market value, the prevailing market value at the time of realisation should be awarded, even if no such relief is specifically sought in the petition [see Syamini S. Nair and Others v. Sreekanth R. (2022 (3) KHC 145)]. However, since the petitioner has already received the amount deposited by the respondents towards the value of 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments, no enhancement is required with respect to those 60 sovereigns. In respect of the remaining gold ornaments, the petitioner is entitled to the market value prevailing on the date of realisation, unless the respondents return the gold ornaments in specie.

12. We now turn to the question as to whether the petitioner has proved her claim for return of money. Notably, the petitioner did not examine her parents, despite her assertion that they had handed over the money to the respondents. She is unable to produce any records showing that her parents had enough funds at the relevant time to make the payments allegedly made.

13. Even though the petition was amended to specifically plead that she was compelled, at the instance of the respondents, to withdraw the Fixed Deposit maintained in her account with the Pathiyoor Farmers Service Co-operative Bank on 04.09.2014, there is no convincing evidence to show that the said amount was given to the respondents. We also note that the petitioner did not raise this claim when the original petition was filed in 2018, and that the said plea was introduced only by way of amendment in 2020.

14. It is relevant to advert to the reasons assigned by the trial court while dismissing those claims. The Family Court observed that although the petitioner produced Exts.A1 series, A2 series, A3, A12, and A13—being copies of the bank account statements of her father—a perusal of those documents revealed that no large amounts were withdrawn during the relevant period and hence, the said account statements were of no assistance in proving the petitioner’s claim that her father had entrusted money to the respondents. The court further found that the specific pleading that the petitioner’s father paid Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- on 15.03.2011 and 08.09.2013 respectively was highly improbable, as the balance available in his account during that period was less than Rs.2,00,000/-, and no withdrawals of substantial amounts were reflected in the records. With respect to the claim relating to the withdrawal of the Fixed Deposit amounts, the trial court observed that the petitioner had no case that she was compelled to sign on the reverse of the Fixed Deposit receipts, which is mandatory for encashment upon surrender of the receipts.

15. The petitioner, who appeared in person, fairly conceded that the records produced by her would not themselves substantiate her claim and contended that the amounts were given by her parents from other sources. However, there is no material on record to support that contention. The trial court, having had the benefit of observing the demeanour of the witnesses, did not accept the petitioner’s version with respect to her monetary claims. In the light of the above circumstances, we find no reason to take a different view.

16. Referring to Exts.A4 and A5 series receipts issued by Vijaya Kuries and Saran Chitty Fund (35 receipts in total), the petitioner contended that the amounts covered by those receipts are still with the respondents and that the said documents establish that her mother had remitted the chits in the chit funds conducted by the respondents. We are unable to grant a decree in favour of the petitioner on the basis of those documents, for the evident reason that her mother has not raised any claim in that regard. It is pertinent to note that the amounts allegedly due pertain to a chit transaction involving the petitioner’s mother, and there is no evidence to substantiate the petitioner’s contention that the chit amounts were entrusted to the respondents for her benefit. The mother is not examined. In the absence of such evidence, we are unable to grant a decree to the petitioner in respect of the amounts claimed to be due to her mother. The claim for the amount said to have given by her father to the partnership business is also not entertainable for the same reasons.

17. Likewise, as correctly held by the trial court, when the petitioner has no case that the gold ornaments belonging to the child were purchased by her, recovery thereof cannot be sought by the petitioner, except by instituting a petition on behalf of the minor child. We clarify that there is no legal impediment to the institution of such proceedings, despite the dismissal of the present claim. We clarify that we have not expressed either way on the merits of the claim.

18. Though the petitioner requested to remand back the case for enabling her to adduce further evidence, the said course is not permissible, unless there are reasons to set aside the impugned judgment. In Hameed and Others v. Kummottummal Kunhi P. P. Amma [(2007) 15 SCC 155], it is held that an appeal should not be remanded to fill up the evidentiary gap. In Heinz India Pvt. Ltd and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [2012 (5) SCC 443], it is held no remand ought to be made only to enable a party to produce additional material.

                  In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The respondents are directed to return 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the petitioner/appellant within a period of one month, failing which she is entitled to recover its market value at the time of recovery from the respondents and their assets. The remaining part of the decree is upheld. No costs.