Marriage Register Can’t Be Brushed Aside—Wife Entitled to 50 Sovereigns and ₹47,000”: Kerala High Court Modifies Family Court Decree

“When Gold Was Sold for Treatment, Denial Rings Hollow—Ornaments Must Be Returned with Interest”, In a judgment reaffirming the evidentiary value of community marriage records and logical inferences from cross-examinations, the Kerala High Court partially allowed the wife’s appeal seeking recovery of gold and money from her estranged husband and mother-in-law. The Court modified the decree passed by the Family Court, granting Sheeba the right to recover 50 sovereigns of gold and ₹47,000 with 6% interest, while rejecting her additional monetary claim of ₹75,000 for lack of proof.

Justice Sathish Ninan, speaking for the Division Bench with Justice P. Krishna Kumar concurring, noted, “There was sale of gold ornaments practically brought to light by the very suggestions made during cross-examination... This probabilises the case of misappropriation.”

Sheeba R.S. and Mohan Sam were married on October 24, 2001. The wife alleged that she had been provided with 60 sovereigns of gold and ₹75,000 at the time of marriage, and later gave an additional ₹47,000 in 2004 at the behest of her in-laws. Following marital discord, they had been living separately since 2010. In 2013, she approached the Family Court, Attingal, seeking return of the gold and cash. The Family Court, however, decreed her claim only partially—granting recovery of 25 sovereigns and ₹47,000.

Challenging the partial rejection, Sheeba filed an appeal before the High Court.

A central piece of evidence was the marriage register maintained by the SNDP Sakha Yogam, produced as Ext.A5 and Ext.X1. It recorded that Sheeba was given 60 sovereigns of gold. The Court rejected the husband’s claim that signatures were obtained fraudulently on blank papers:

“There is no material to doubt the genuineness of the Sakha register or the entry in the register. The President of the SNDP Sakha Yogam was examined and nothing emerged to discredit him.”

The Court drew strong inferences from the cross-examination of the wife:

“It was suggested to her that the ornaments were sold jointly by her parents and her mother-in-law at a jewellery shop in Thrissur. Such a suggestion itself supports the case that the ornaments existed and were disposed of.”

Photographs from the marriage (Ext.A3 series) showing Sheeba wearing the jewellery were also attacked by the husband’s side as “fabricated,” but the Court found such arguments unconvincing.

Justice Ninan emphasized:

“The capacity to provide such gold is also supported by the petitioner’s father’s employment in the Gulf. The claim of 60 sovereigns is thus probable.”

However, making a realistic deduction, the Court observed:

“The petitioner must have retained some jewellery for daily use and her thali chain. We fix the quantity as 10 sovereigns to be retained, and hence, she is entitled to recovery of 50 sovereigns.”

On the Monetary Claim of ₹75,000:

The Court rejected the wife’s further claim for ₹75,000 allegedly given at the time of marriage, noting:

“Except the ipse dixit of PW1, there is no oral or documentary evidence. Even her father, said to have given the money, was not examined.”

The High Court thus upheld the Family Court’s rejection of this portion of the claim.

The Kerala High Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the Family Court’s order. It decreed that Sheeba is entitled to:

• Recovery of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments

• ₹47,000 in cash

• Interest at 6% per annum from the date of the original petition until realization

The judgment concluded:

“The respondents are bound to return the gold ornaments. The suggestion that the gold was sold itself supports the claim.”

The Court clarified that if the Family Court’s partial decree has already been satisfied, the respondents may inform the executing court accordingly in case fresh recovery steps are initiated.

Date of Decision: May 22, 2025