In a Case for Return of Gold, the Wife has Initial Duty to Prove Entrustment

To claim return of gold there must be some proof

In a claim for return of gold ornaments and money, the wife has to initially prove the entrustment. Mere assertions, without any trace of evidence, are not sufficient to grant a decree by the family court, says the High Court of Kerala  (HCK) in Mohandas v Sunitha Mohandas [2024:KER:81527].

Claim in the above case

In this case, the Family Court ordered a decree directing the respondent/husband to return 120 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its market value of ₹24,33,600/- and to pay ₹75,000/- towards the value of gift articles. The case reached as an appeal in the HCK and the court issued the above order.

Some judgments the wife relied on

The wife relied on the judgement in Rajesh P.P and another v Deepthi P.R [2021 (4) KHC 242] and contended that it would be unrealistic for a Court to insist on documentary evidence regarding ornaments that had changed hands at the time of marriage. And as stated in Bexy Michael v A.J.Michael [2010(4) KHC 376) (DB] it was held that it would be unreasonable, irrational, puerile and perverse for a court in the given circumstances to look for documentary evidence regarding the ornaments and money that had changed hands at the time of marriage.

If gold in entrusted, the husband becomes its trustee

In the order the HCK says that upon entrustment the husband or husband’s in-laws assume the role of trustees and they are under an obligation to return the property to her. But the initial burden to prove the entrustment lies within the petition’s wife.

Wife must prove the entrustment

The HCK says the onus is on the petitioner to prove that she entrusted her entire gold ornaments to the respondent who in in turn appropriated it. But once she discharges the initial burden then the onus of proof shifts to the husband and his in-laws to account for the property.

Specific pleading and evidence necessary to grant a decree

Based on a slew of judgements the HCK reasserted that in order to grant a decree for return of gold ornaments and money there should be specific pleadings and evidence regarding the entrustment of the gold ornaments to the husband or in-laws.  In the absence of any proof regarding entrustment, the relief for return of gold and cash cannot be granted.

References

1. Mohandas v Sunitha Mohandas [2024:KER:81527]
2. Rajesh P.P and another v Deepthi P.R [2021 (4) KHC 242]
3. Bexy Michael v A.J.Michael [2010(4) KHC 376) (DB]