Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money

“Technical Objections Cannot Defeat Substantive Justice In Family Proceedings”, In a significant matrimonial ruling delivered on 16/02/2026, the Kerala High Court modified but largely upheld a decree directing return of gold ornaments and money to a wife, holding that technical objections under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act cannot override the liberal evidentiary regime under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar was considering an appeal filed by the husband and his family members challenging the decree passed by the Family Court, Thiruvalla in O.P. No. 397 of 2014. The Family Court had directed return of 80¾ sovereigns of gold and Rs.10,88,529/- to the wife. The High Court modified the decree to 72¾ sovereigns and reduced the rate of interest, while affirming the findings on entrustment, misappropriation and joint liability.

The Court ultimately directed the appellants to return 72¾ sovereigns of gold within one month, failing which the wife would be entitled to recover its value at the time of realization, and upheld the decree for Rs.10,88,529/- with interest at 9% per annum till decree and 6% thereafter.

Marriage, Locker And The Gold: “In All Probabilities, The Locker Must Have Been For Safe Keeping Of The Petitioner’s Ornaments”

The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 05.05.2011. The wife, who was employed in Ireland at the time, asserted that she possessed 85 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. According to her, on the very next day, she entrusted the ornaments, except a two-sovereign chain, to her husband and mother-in-law for safe custody in a locker opened in their joint names ten days prior to the marriage.

The respondents denied the claims. However, the High Court noted that the specific averment regarding possession of 85 sovereigns was not denied in the written objections.

Marriage photographs marked as Ext.A15 and Ext.A16 were proved through the photographer, and the Court found “nothing to discredit his evidence.” Ext.A10 series, relating to purchase of ornaments, was accepted as genuine despite the jeweller turning hostile. The Court concurred with the Family Court in disbelieving the jeweller and upholding the purchase documents.

Crucially, Ext.X1 series, the locker access register, revealed that the locker was opened on 25.04.2011 in the names of the husband and mother-in-law, and was operated by them on several occasions. The defence that the locker was meant for the third respondent’s wife was rejected, particularly as neither the third respondent nor his wife was examined.

The Bench observed, “In all probabilities, the locker, which was opened ten days prior to the marriage, must have been for the purpose of safe keeping of the gold ornaments of the petitioner.” The repeated operation of the locker by respondents 1 and 2 “probabilises the allegation of the petitioner that her ornaments were utilised or appropriated.”

While the Family Court had granted a decree for 80¾ sovereigns, the High Court reasoned that it was only probable that the wife retained more than a mere chain for daily wear. Estimating such retention at approximately 10 sovereigns, the Court reduced the decretal quantity to 72¾ sovereigns.

Irish Bank Transfers: “Husband’s Meagre Income Disproves Defence”

The wife further alleged that while she was employed in Ireland, the husband misused her ATM card and online banking access to transfer substantial sums to his mother in India. Though she claimed Rs.22,50,000/-, the Family Court granted a decree for Rs.10,88,529/- based on documentary proof.

Ext.X4, the bank statement of the second respondent, revealed multiple credits in Euro. The defence was that the husband had sent the amounts from his earnings in Ireland. However, the Court examined Ext.A6, the husband’s pay certificate, and Ext.A7, relating to the wife’s income, and found that the husband was earning only a “very meager income.”

The Bench categorically held that the claim that the amounts reflected in Ext.X4 were sent by the husband “cannot be accepted.”

Further, Ext.A3, the wife’s Irish bank account statement, though initially not relied upon by the Family Court for want of certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, was accepted by the High Court. Each page bore the bank’s official seal certifying it as a true copy.

Invoking Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, the Court observed, “Strict rules of evidence does not apply to proceedings before the Family Court.” The Bench found no reason to doubt the genuineness of the bank statements and payment advice (Ext.A5), which clearly established transfers of Rs.10,88,529/- to the second respondent.

The Court affirmed that “the materials sufficiently prove the transfer” and upheld the decree for recovery of the said amount.

Joint Liability Of Husband And In-Laws Affirmed

An argument was raised that the third respondent could not be made liable. The Court rejected this contention, noting that the pleadings specifically alleged involvement of respondents 3 and 4 for their common benefit. The wife, examined as PW1, vouched for such involvement, and the Family Court had accepted her version.

The Division Bench found no reason to interfere with the finding of joint liability.

Interest Modified: “9% Till Decree Would Be Just And Reasonable”

The Family Court had awarded interest at 12% per annum till the date of decree and 6% thereafter. Considering prevailing rates, the High Court reduced the pre-decree interest to 9% per annum while maintaining 6% per annum thereafter till realization.

The Court concluded that, except for modification regarding the quantity of gold and rate of interest, “no other interference is called for.”

Allowing the appeal in part, the Kerala High Court directed return of 72¾ sovereigns of gold within one month, failing which the wife would be entitled to recover its value at the time of realization. The decree for Rs.10,88,529/- was affirmed with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of decree (16.02.2026) and 6% per annum thereafter till realization.

The judgment reinforces the principle that Family Courts are not shackled by rigid evidentiary technicalities and that where entrustment and misappropriation are probabilised through credible material, relief must follow.

Date of Decision: 16/02/2026