Monetary Claims in Matrimonial Disputes Cannot Survive Without Evidence: Kerala High Court Rejects ₹1.24 Crore Claim for Lack of Proof

"Where serious allegations of monetary entrustment are made, the party must prove not only the transaction but also the source of funds and the capacity of the person claimed to have made such payment." - In a notable reaffirmation of evidentiary rigour in matrimonial litigation, the Kerala High Court dismissed a substantial financial claim of ₹1.24 crore made by a woman against her estranged husband and in-laws, holding that such claims cannot be granted in absence of credible evidence, material witnesses, or documentary substantiation.

In Matrimonial Appeal Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar ruled that claims based on alleged entrustment of money by the petitioner’s parents were not proved, as neither parent was examined, and no records were shown to establish the availability or transfer of such funds.

"Petitioner’s Belated Claims, Without Proof, Cannot Be Granted"

The appellant had claimed that her father handed over ₹11 lakhs towards her share in the family and that chit fund amounts and fixed deposits were misappropriated by the respondents. She later amended the petition to include claims relating to the encashment of her fixed deposit of ₹10.25 lakhs and a ₹1.24 lakh partnership contribution allegedly made by her father.

However, the Court noted several glaring lapses:

“The petitioner did not examine her parents, despite her assertion that they had handed over the money to the respondents… She is unable to produce any records showing that her parents had enough funds at the relevant time to make the payments allegedly made.”

The High Court concurred with the Family Court’s observation that the bank statements (Exts.A1 to A3, A12, A13) of the petitioner’s father did not show large withdrawals or balances sufficient to make such payments. The pleaded dates of alleged cash transfers were directly contradicted by insufficient balances in the account.

The Court was also unconvinced by the belated amendment introducing the fixed deposit claim two years after the original petition:

“Though the petition was amended in 2020 to raise the FD withdrawal claim, there is no convincing evidence to show that the said amount was given to the respondents… There was no case of coercion to sign the FD receipt, which is required for encashment.”

Chit Fund and Partnership Claims: "No Locus, No Evidence"

The petitioner had also produced 35 receipts (Exts.A4 & A5 series) relating to chit funds allegedly subscribed by her mother, arguing that the amounts were misappropriated by the respondents. But the Court firmly rejected this claim, citing lack of locus standi and evidence of entrustment:

“Her mother has not raised any claim in that regard… There is no evidence to substantiate the petitioner’s contention that the chit amounts were entrusted to the respondents for her benefit.”

Similarly, the petitioner’s claim that her father joined as a partner in a firm operated by the respondents and deposited ₹1.24 lakhs was rejected on the same grounds—no documents, no testimony, and no proof of contribution or misappropriation.

Observations on Credibility and Conduct of Litigation

The High Court noted that the petitioner appeared in person and made extensive submissions, but ultimately failed to produce necessary legal proof. While acknowledging her contention that funds may have come from “other sources,” the Court held:

“There is no material on record to support that contention… The trial court, having had the benefit of observing the demeanour of the witnesses, rightly disbelieved the petitioner’s version.”

The Court refused to interfere with the Family Court's findings on monetary claims, stressing that in personal law disputes, especially where high-value financial claims are made, the burden of proof is strict and cannot be waived on mere allegations or assumptions.

Claims Must Be Backed by Records and Testimony

By declining to entertain high-value monetary demands made without source proof, material witnesses, or timely pleadings, the Kerala High Court has sent a strong message: in matrimonial recovery suits, civil courts require the same discipline of evidence as in any other suit for recovery of money.

The judgment underscores that emotional and familial contexts do not dilute the evidentiary requirements under civil law. Failure to examine crucial witnesses and produce financial records can fatally damage even a plausible claim.

Date of Decision: 09/02/2026