No Strict proof needed for married woman claiming return of gold from In-Laws: Kerala High Court

In a matrimonial appeal filed by the husband’s family. No Strict proof needed for married woman claiming return of gold from In-Laws: Kerala High Court Division Bench comprising Justices Devan Ramachandran and M.B. Snehalatha addressed the evidentiary burden faced by women in domestic contexts. The appeal challenged a Family Court order directing the return of 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the respondent (wife).

The respondent had alleged that at the time of her marriage on 25 April 2012, she was adorned with 81 sovereigns of gold. Of this, 53 sovereigns were purchased by her father, as evidenced by bills from Malabar Gold and Diamonds dated the day before the wedding. The remaining gold, according to the respondent, included 21 sovereigns from relatives and 6 sovereigns gifted by her husband during engagement.

Soon after marriage, the husband, employed abroad, returned to his workplace. The respondent remained at the matrimonial home with her in-laws, who allegedly took possession of her gold for safekeeping. She later faced mental harassment and demands for additional dowry. Tragedy struck when the husband died by suicide in January 2013. Following this, the respondent stayed at the matrimonial home for 15 more days before being forced out by her in-laws. Despite repeated requests, the gold was not returned, prompting her to file a petition for its recovery.

The Family Court, after examining the evidence, directed the return of 53 sovereigns of gold. The appellants—her mother-in-law and brother-in-law—contended that the respondent’s father lacked the financial means to purchase such a quantity of gold and denied receiving it. The Family Court rejected this claim and found the respondent’s version more credible. On appeal, the High Court upheld this conclusion in part.

The Bench made notable observations regarding the evidentiary challenges women face in such disputes. It emphasized that in most Indian households, entrustment of jewellery happens informally, often in private, and without witnesses or documentation. Expecting newly married women to secure receipts or independent proof when handing over valuables within the family was found to be unrealistic. The Court stressed that applying the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” as in criminal trials would be unfair in such domestic disputes. Instead, the Court adopted the “preponderance of probabilities” principle, which is more suitable for civil matters.

On this basis, the Court found it more plausible that the respondent had indeed entrusted her jewellery to her mother-in-law, who failed to offer any reasonable explanation about its whereabouts. The High Court thus directed the return of 53 sovereigns of gold to the respondent and dismissed the claims against the brother-in-law, setting aside the Family Court’s order against him. The mother-in-law was also ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Case details: [X v Y, Mat. Appeal No. 773 of 2020, decided on 02-07-2025]