Mere Allegations Cannot Establish a Claim for Gold or Money: Kerala High Court Rejects Wife’s Demand but Enhances Maintenance

Mere Allegations Cannot Establish a Claim for Gold or Money: Kerala High Court Rejects Wife’s Demand but Enhances Maintenance

Kerala High Court held that "mere allegations without proof cannot justify a claim for the return of gold ornaments or money." Dismissing a wife's demand for 203 sovereigns of gold and ₹7 lakh allegedly spent on home construction, the court ruled that she failed to provide credible evidence of entrustment or misappropriation. However, the court partially allowed her appeal by enhancing her maintenance award from ₹60,000 to ₹1,20,000 with 6% interest per annum, stating that her husband failed to prove that he provided financial support during the relevant period.

The division bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha, hearing Mat. Appeal No. 622 of 2020, upheld the Family Court, Malappuram’s ruling, which had declined the return of gold ornaments and financial claims but awarded maintenance to the minor child. Modifying the judgment to increase the wife’s maintenance, the High Court emphasized that “financial obligations towards a spouse cannot be ignored, and in the absence of proof of support, maintenance must be granted.”

"No Evidence of Entrustment or Misappropriation of Gold"
The wife, E. Shabana Tezni, had approached the court claiming that her husband and in-laws took possession of her 203 sovereigns of gold and used it to expand their business. She alleged that her father had initially given 150 sovereigns at the time of marriage, and when her in-laws demanded more, he provided another 53 sovereigns in September 2002. She further contended that her gold was left in her mother-in-law’s custody when she went to her parental home for childbirth, and it was never returned.

The husband, Kannanthody Shameer, denied these allegations, arguing that his wife took all her gold with her when she left and that there was no evidence to prove that the family ever took possession of her ornaments.

The High Court, after examining the evidence, ruled that "a claim for the return of gold ornaments must be substantiated by clear proof of entrustment. Mere statements by the petitioner are insufficient to grant such a decree." The court noted that the wife failed to specify when and how the gold was entrusted to her in-laws and that her own father, during cross-examination, admitted that there was no complaint against the accused.

Rejecting the claim, the court held, "Financial transactions must be backed by verifiable evidence. Without proof of actual entrustment, no legal relief can be granted."

"Maintenance Obligations Cannot Be Ignored"
While dismissing the gold claim, the court found merit in the wife’s plea for increased maintenance, observing that the husband had not produced any evidence to show that he provided for his wife and child during the relevant period.

The Family Court had awarded ₹60,000 in maintenance for the child, but the High Court increased the amount to ₹1,20,000 for the wife, ruling that “when a husband fails to establish that he provided financial support, the wife is entitled to arrears of maintenance.” The court emphasized that spousal maintenance is not a mere formality but a legal obligation that must be fulfilled.

"Legal Claims Must Be Backed by Evidence"
Concluding the case, the Kerala High Court ruled that “while a husband cannot escape his duty to pay maintenance, a wife’s claims for gold or money must be supported by substantial proof.” The court reiterated that "the law does not recognize vague allegations as sufficient grounds for financial restitution."

With this verdict, the High Court reaffirmed that "family courts must base their decisions on evidence, not assumptions," ensuring that both financial rights and obligations are fairly enforced.
 

Date of Decision: 21 February 2025