P. Krishna Kumar, J.

1. A petition filed by the wife for recovery of gold and money was allowed by the Family Court, Ernakulam. The respondent-husband is in appeal. By the impugned judgment, the appellant was directed to return 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.1,90,000/-.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 23.05.2016. After the engagement ceremony, on 12.05.2016, the petitioner and her mother went to Bhima Jewellery, Ernakulam, together with the respondent and his relatives for purchasing gold ornaments. Then the mother of the petitioner gave Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was given 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The petitioner gave those ornaments to the respondent. It is further alleged that the gold ornaments and money given to the respondent were misappropriated by him for his personal needs. She also claimed Rs.40,000/- for the value of movable articles retained by the respondent.

3. The respondent stoutly resisted the petition by denying the above allegations. According to him, he did not receive Rs.1,50,000/- or the gold ornaments. The allegation that the gold ornaments and the money were misappropriated by him was also denied. According to the respondent, they went to Bhima Jewellery for purchasing a thali chain and not the gold ornaments worn by the petitioner at the time of her marriage. The allegation that the petitioner possessed 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage was also denied.

4. During the trial, on the side of the petitioner, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked. The respondent adduced evidence as RW1.

5. Heard Smt. Parvathy Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent.

6. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the petitioner is entitled to recover 40 sovereigns of  gold ornaments, Rs.1,90,000/- and Rs.40,000/- being the value of movable articles, from the respondent.

7. Though the respondent contended that the petitioner did not possess 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage, the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2, Exts.A6 and A7 series of bills issued by Bhima Jewellery accounting for the purchase of more than 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments, together with Ext.A2 series and Ext.A9 series photographs, make her claim highly probable. The cross-examination of those witnesses did not succeed in bringing out any material to contradict their version.

8. It is contended by Smt. Parvathy Menon, the learned counsel for the respondent, that the petitioner did not state anywhere in the petition that she had entrusted the gold ornaments to the respondent or his relatives.

9. The petitioner has stated in paragraph 3 of the petition as follows:

                  “During the mooting of the marriage proposal, the respondent and his family members informed the petitioner’s family that they do not have any demand with regard to any share in her property or about gold and money and that they only want a girl who is having good conduct and behaviour. On 12.05.2016, the Engagement Ceremony was solemnized at Pottakuzhy Cherupushpam Church. On 19.05.2016, the petitioner, her mother, the respondent, his mother and sister went to Bhima Jewellery, Ernakulam for purchasing gold ornaments and dress materials for the marriage. On that occasion, the respondent told the petitioner’s mother that he was in need of money and the petitioner’s mother gave Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) to the respondent. Apart from that, the petitioner was also given gold ornaments weighing 45 sovereigns and also Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Only) was deposited in the State Bank of India and Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank, Palarivattom as a Fixed Deposit in the name of the petitioner. The gold ornaments and the money given to the respondent were misappropriated and misused by the respondent for his own personal needs.”

                  (emphasis added)

                  Though not in so many words, the petitioner has specifically stated that her gold ornaments and money were given to the respondent. She has also stated that the money and gold ornaments were misappropriated and misused by the respondent for his own personal needs. What is lacking in the pleading is only the date on which the gold ornaments were given to the respondent. However, when the petition is read in its entirety, it cannot be said that the above omission has caused any prejudice to the respondent in raising his contentions. Merely because the term “entrustment” is not used in the pleading, it would not affect the entitlement of the petitioner to claim back her gold ornaments, if she had in fact given them to the respondent. As the ornaments are stated to have been given while the matrimonial relationship was subsisting with all its vigour, no different meaning can be attributed to the said expression. At any rate, the petition for return of gold ornaments was filed within two years of the marriage and, therefore, the distinction between ‘given’ and ‘entrusted’ assumes little significance.

10. The learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the petitioner had instituted certain other proceedings against the respondent, but did not state therein that she had given any gold ornaments or money to him. The petitioner had submitted Ext. A3 complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kodungallur. She had also filed a complaint before the Legal Services Authority, Ernakulam, as evidenced by Ext.A5. It is true that she has not stated in Exts.A3 and A5 that the respondent had been entrusted with any gold ornaments. The petitioner submitted the complaint before the Police on 08.08.2016 mainly raising her grievance against the family members of the respondent and, in particular, their conduct in portraying her as an abnormal person. Likewise, Ext.A5 complaint was submitted before the Legal Services Authority on 01.11.2016 seeking restoration of her marital life. Thus, even if she omitted to state therein that her gold ornaments had been given to the respondent, such omission cannot be treated as fatal.

11. We have already concluded that the petitioner possessed 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage. It is a matter of common knowledge that, upon reaching the matrimonial home after marriage, a bride may not be in a position to retain all her gold ornaments in her personal custody. Ordinarily, such ornaments are entrusted to the husband or his close relatives for safe custody. When we consider the oral evidence of PW1 in the light of the above observations, we find that the case of the petitioner that she had entrusted her gold ornaments to the respondent is probable. The trial court, having had the advantage of observing the demeanour of the witnesses who appeared on both sides, concluded that the respondent is liable to return 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments, placing greater reliance on the evidence adduced by the petitioner. We find no material on record to take a different view. In the above circumstances, we uphold the finding of the trial court that the petitioner is entitled to recover 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the respondent.

12. This Court in the order dated 13.06.2025, had recorded the submission of the learned counsel then appearing for the respondent that he was willing to hand over 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments to his wife if she agreed to a divorce. However, an affidavit was filed by the respondent on the previous day (13.06.2026) stating that he had never instructed his lawyer to make such a submission. We make it clear that we have not been guided by either of the above materials and that the decision herein is rendered solely on the merits of the case.

13. Similarly, from the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2, which is consistent with the statements contained in Exts.A3 and A5 complaints, it is only probable that the respondent had received Rs.1,50,000/- from the mother of the petitioner (PW2). The respondent did not dispute the fact that on 12.05.2016, he was also present at the Jewellery shop at which the amount was allegedly given to him. In that regard also, we find the case of the petitioner more reliable than the contentions of the respondent.

14. As regards the value of the movable articles (Rs.40,000/-), the respondent has admitted in his counter that he received the said amount for purchasing an almirah. Though he contended that the amount was later returned, no convincing evidence has been adduced to substantiate that contention. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial court in that regard as well.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed, upholding the judgment of the trial court.