Rely on principle of preponderance of probabilities in settling disputes over a wife’s gold ornaments: Kerala high court

Kochi: High court has held that in matrimonial disputes involving the misappropriation of gold ornaments belonging to the wife by her husband or in-laws, where she is unable to prove such informal transfers, courts must rely on the principle of the preponderance of probabilities to ensure justice.
A bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and M B Snehalatha was considering a plea by a married woman challenging a family court order, which had dismissed her demand for the return of 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments from her in-laws. HC observed that, unfortunately, there are numerous instances where such valuable possessions are misappropriated by the husband or his family. It noted that gold given to a bride is often retained by the husband or his relatives under the pretext of safekeeping or following customary practices. In most cases, the woman does not receive any written record or receipt for such transfers, and her access to the ornaments is often restricted. When disputes arise, the woman may claim that her gold ornaments were misused or never returned. However, the absence of formal acknowledgement or inventory makes it difficult to prove ownership.
The court emphasised that such practical difficulties must be recognised, and courts cannot insist on rigid standards of legal proof as required in criminal cases. The inability to produce documentary evidence should not become a barrier to justice. The judicial approach must therefore rest on the principle of the preponderance of probabilities to ensure that the legal system remains sensitive, fair, and just.
In the petition, HC observed that the evidence on record indicated that the woman's parents were employed and had the financial capacity to gift her 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It found no reason to disbelieve the version of the petitioner and her father. The husband, however, contended that she had taken all her gold ornaments with her when she went to her parental home during pregnancy. The court rejected this claim, noting that he had not entered the witness box to testify under oath. Moreover, it found it highly improbable that the petitioner would have taken her entire set of ornaments at such a time.
Based on the materials on record, the bench directed the husband to return the ornaments either in the form of physical gold or its market value as on the date of return.