Gold Given To Bride Her Exclusive Property; Strict Documentary Proof Can't Be Insisted In Wife's Claim To Return Stridhan : Kerala High Court

"Due to private and often informal nature of the transfers, it becomes merely impossible for women to produce documentary evidence proving ownership or misappropriations. In such situation the courts have to rely on the principle of preponderance of probabilities to deliver justice.”

The Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha emphasized that cash and gold given to a woman at the time of her marriage is her “Sreedhan” and it is her exclusive property.

The Court explained that 'preponderance of probability' means the court has to see which party's version is more plausible. There is no absolute requirement of certainty or eliminating all doubts.

The instant appeal concerns the claim of the wife that 65 ¹/₂ sovereigns of gold she got during her marriage was with her husband and she was entitled to get back that. The couple was living separately due to the issues between them. The husband refuted the claim and said that she had taken all her gold with her when she left the home.

As per the wife's case, at the time of marriage, her parents gave her 63 sovereigns of gold, a chain of 2 sovereigns was given to her husband by her parents and her cousins gave her 6 sovereigns of gold ornaments. She stated that on the 3^rd day of her marriage, all her gold ornaments except those used by her for regular wear was shifted to her in-laws' room. The wife was demanding that gold to be returned.

The Court said that there was document on record to show that a fixed deposit of the wife's parents was utilized for purchasing the gold ornament for her. The Court also said that at the time of her marriage, the wife's parents had sufficient financial capacity to give her 65 sovereigns of gold. The court concluded that there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the wife that her parents gave her 63 sovereign of gold and her husband a gold chain of 2 sovereigns.

The wife had deposed before the court that she left her matrimonial home with her parents for pregnancy care. After that, she did not return to her matrimonial home due to issues between her husband. The Court observed that it was highly improbable that she took her ornaments with her at that time.

The Court however observed that the wife could not adduce any proof regarding the 6 sovereigns of gold which she claimed was given to her by her cousins. The wife had also raised a claim for return of some household articles. The court denied that claim on the ground that the wife could not produce any proof regarding misappropriation of those articles.

On these observations, the Court held that the wife has proved that 59 ¹/₂ sovereigns of her gold ornaments was with her husband and held that she was entitled to get it back.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates M. S. Unnikrishnan, V. S. Sreejith, K. Sunil, Rinu S. Aswan, M. Ardra Krishnan, Aleena Maria Jose, Susan Jacob

Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates Santheep Ankarath, J. Ramkumar

Case No: Mat. Appeal 291 of 2020

Case Title: x v y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 257