“Eight Years After Separation, A Claim for 50 Sovereigns and ₹3 Lakhs Is Improbable”: Kerala High Court Rejects Wife’s Patrimony Claim, Confirms Maintenance with Interest

The case of the petitioner is full of inconsistencies… No material sufficient enough to overturn the finding of the Family Court is brought to our notice -  Kerala High Court comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen, upheld the Family Court’s dismissal of a wife’s claim for 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹3 lakhs, while affirming the award of ₹10,000 per month as maintenance. The Court found the wife’s allegations of entrustment of gold and patrimony at the time of marriage to be “improbable, inconsistent, and unsupported by evidence,” particularly because the claims were made eight years after separation.

 Entrustment Allegations Were Vague, Shifting, and Belated

 The core of the wife’s case was that at the time of her marriage in December 2002, she had handed over 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹3 lakhs to her husband. However, the Court found that her pleadings and testimony failed to establish when or how the gold and cash were entrusted.

 “There is no claim in the original petition that the money was paid on the date of engagement… the averments indicate that the entrustment was after the marriage,” the Court noted, pointing to contradictions in the wife’s own pleadings.  

Citing the timeline, the bench observed:

“While the parties lived together for only four months, the claim for gold and money is made only in the year 2013. It is highly improbable that if 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹3 lakhs were with the respondent, the same would not have been demanded for a period of eight years.”

The Court was also unimpressed by the shifting nature of the wife’s case. Initially, she made no mention of any entrustment at the time of engagement, but during evidence attempted to rely on a bank statement showing a withdrawal of ₹3,13,500 on

15.11.2002, a day before the engagement.

 A case is then sought to be urged that, on 16.11.2002, during the engagement ceremony an amount of ₹3 lakhs was handed over to the respondent… Noticeably, till that stage there was no such case for the petitioner,” the judgment observed.

 List of Ornaments Inconsistent with Claimed Quantity

Even the quantity of gold alleged to have been entrusted was doubted by the Court. While the wife claimed 50 sovereigns, the list of ornaments in her petition accounted for more than that.

 Furthermore, the Court found glaring contradictions in the timeline of events:

 “While at one portion she would depose that the entrustment with the respondent was after they returned from her house at Thrissur, yet another portion it is stated that the entrustment was on the Sunday after the marriage.”

Adding to the doubt was the attempt to implicate the husband’s brother during trial, despite no such allegation in the pleadings:

 “The petitioner never had a case even in the original petition or in the evidence with regard to entrustment of gold and money with the respondent’s brother.”

 The Court, therefore, found that the Family Court had rightly rejected the patrimony and gold claim, observing:

 “The case of the petitioner is full of inconsistencies… We concur with the finding of the Family Court negativing the claim for gold and money.”

 Maintenance of ₹10,000 Found Justified – Interest Awarded on Arrears

 While the husband appealed against the maintenance award, the Court upheld the Family Court’s finding, noting the financial position of the husband and the absence of contrary proof.

 “It is not in dispute that the respondent-husband belongs to a well-off family… An ordinary prudent man will not keep such building as vacant,” the Court said, rejecting the husband’s claim that his rental building was not yielding any income.

 The Court found that the wife had no independent income, and the quantum of ₹10,000 per month was reasonable in the given circumstances.

 Importantly, the Court recorded that the husband had not complied with even the interim order of ₹5,000 maintenance, and hence:

 “Having regard to the refusal on the part of the husband to pay the maintenance, it is ordered that the arrears of maintenance shall bear interest at the rate of 9% per annum.”

 “While affirming the decree and judgment of the Family Court, it is ordered that the wife shall be entitled to realise the arrears of maintenance at the rate of 9% p.a. No other interference is called for.”

 In sum, the High Court’s judgment underscores the principle that delayed, inconsistent, and unsupported claims—especially involving valuable assets—cannot be upheld, while also reaffirming a spouse’s right to reasonable maintenance when the other partner is financially well-positioned and has failed to provide support.

Date of Decision: 24 March 2025