Sathish Ninan, J.

1. The original petition filed by the wife against the husband and in-laws, seeking return of gold and value of movables, was decreed with regard to the value of movables alone. Challenging the dismissal of the claim for gold, the wife is in appeal. Since we are concerned with the claim for gold alone, the other aspects are not being adverted to.

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 14.09.2006. According to the petitioner-wife, at the time of marriage, she was provided with 67 sovereigns of gold ornaments by her family. The 1st respondent is the husband. The 2nd respondent is his mother. The other respondents are the sister and brother of the 1st respondent. The petitioner alleged that, after the marriage, except a few ornaments required for daily wear, the remaining 56 ¾ of gold ornaments were taken by the husband. It is alleged that the ornaments were appropriated either for the marriage of the 3rd respondent's daughter or were pledged or sold by the respondents. She sought recovery of the 56 ¾ sovereigns of gold ornaments.

3. The respondents denied the claim that the petitioner had 67 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It was contended that the petitioner did not have any gold at the time of marriage. They also denied the alleged misappropriation.

4. The Family Court held that the petitioner failed to prove the quantity of the gold ornaments and also the alleged entrustment. Accordingly, the claim was dismissed.

5. We have heard the learned counsel on either side.

6. Before we proceed to analyse the evidence it is relevant to note that the contention of the respondents with regard to the gold ornaments which the petitioner had at the time of marriage is one of total denial. The relevant plea at paragraphs 7 and 8 of the objection read thus;

                 

                  As RW1, the contention is reaffirmed thus,

                 

                  Ext.A1 series evidences purchase of gold ornaments by exchange of old gold ornaments. Ext.A1 (e) is the invoice with regard to the purchase of new gold ornaments. Ext.A1 series relate to approximately 43 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Ext.A2 series are the photographs taken in connection with the marriage. A perusal of Ext.A2 photographs substantiate that she was wearing the said quantity of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. Though the respondents disputed the genuineness of the photographs, they did not care to produce the genuine photographs. RW1’s claim that no photographs of the marriage was taken, cannot be easily accepted. Though the learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that in Ext.A1 series, only Ext.A1(e) contains the name of the purchaser and the date, on the entire circumstances, we do not find it to be a reason to discard the same. Ext A1 series and A2 series sufficiently corroborates the claim regarding the quantity of gold ornaments that the petitioner had at the time of marriage. On the materials as above, we are unable to concur with the Family Court in its finding that there is no proof regarding the quantity of the gold ornaments that the petitioner had at the time of marriage.

7. It is the petitioner's case that, immediately after the marriage, the gold ornaments, except that was required for daily wear, were taken by the 1st respondent- husband and entrusted to respondents 2 and 3. The Family Court found that there is no evidence regarding entrustment and that there are no witnesses to the same. It is common knowledge that, when a newly wedded bride reaches the house of the husband, she would not keep in her possession so much quantity of gold ornaments. The same would in all probabilities be handed over to the husband for safe custody. According to the petitioner, some ornaments were utilised for the marriage of the 3rd respondent’s daughter and the other were either pledged or sold. As admitted by the first respondent as RW1, the marriage of the 3rd respondent's daughter was almost one year after the marriage of the petitioner and first respondent. On a reading of the evidence of the petitioner as PW1, we find that in spite of scorching cross-examination, her evidence could not be discredited. We find that the allegation of misappropriation of the gold ornaments by the husband is probable.

8. With regard to the alleged entrustment of the ornaments to the other respondents, there is no positive evidence. Even if they had utilised any ornaments of the petitioner, that was only as given by the first respondent. The petitioner does not have a case that respondents 2 onward had, independent of the first respondent and on their on accord, appropriated the same. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the respondents 2 to 4 cannot be made liable for the claim.

9. We have already held that the petitioner had approximately 43 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. Even according to the petitioner, she had at least 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments with her, for her daily use. Therefore it could be concluded that the petitioner is entitled for return of 33 sovereigns of gold ornaments.

                   In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The decree and judgment of the Family Court, insofar as it declined the claim for gold ornaments, is set aside. A decree is passed directing the 1st respondent to return 33 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the petitioner within one month from today, failing which, the petitioner will be entitled to realise its value as on the date of realisation, from the 1st respondent and his assets.