In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court clarified that gold and cash given to a woman during her marriage are her exclusive property, legally termed as Stridhan. The court also held that strict documentary proof cannot always be insisted upon when a wife seeks the return of her Stridhan, considering the informal nature of such transactions.
“Due to private and often informal nature of the transfers, it becomes merely impossible for women to produce documentary evidence proving ownership or misappropriations. In such situation the courts have to rely on the principle of preponderance of probabilities to deliver justice,”
– Kerala High Court
Read also: Kerala High Court: Set-Off Period Cannot Be Considered for Remission Calculation
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha highlighted that in matrimonial disputes, especially relating to Stridhan, courts should apply the principle of preponderance of probabilities. This means the court must determine which party's account is more believable, rather than requiring absolute certainty.
The judgment came in an appeal where a woman claimed that 65.5 sovereigns of gold, gifted to her at the time of marriage, were still with her husband. The couple had since separated due to marital disputes. The husband denied the claim, alleging she took all her gold with her when she left the matrimonial home.
As per the wife’s testimony:
- 63 sovereigns of gold were given by her parents,
- A 2-sovereign gold chain was gifted to her husband,
- And 6 sovereigns were given by her cousins.
She also stated that within three days of marriage, all her ornaments—except for a few used daily—were moved to her in-laws’ room.
The court took note of documentary evidence showing that a fixed deposit belonging to the wife’s parents was used to buy the gold for her. Additionally, it found credible the claim that her parents had the financial capacity to gift her 65 sovereigns of gold.
“There is no reason to disbelieve the version of the wife that her parents gave her 63 sovereigns of gold and gifted a chain of 2 sovereigns to her husband,”
– Kerala High Court
Regarding the timing of her departure from the matrimonial home, the wife had testified that she left for pregnancy care and did not return due to marital issues. The Court held that it was highly unlikely she carried all her ornaments during that time.
However, the court did not accept the claim of 6 sovereigns allegedly gifted by her cousins due to lack of supporting evidence. It also denied the claim for return of household items, as no proof of misappropriation was presented.
Ultimately, the Court ruled that the wife successfully proved her claim over 59.5 sovereigns of gold still in her husband’s possession and ordered its return.
Quote from Judgment:
"Preponderance of probability is the correct standard in such cases. Certainty is not always possible in matters involving family and marriage-related transfers.”
– Justice Devan Ramachandran & Justice M. B. Snehalatha
Counsel for Petitioners:
Advocates M. S. Unnikrishnan, V. S. Sreejith, K. Sunil, Rinu S. Aswan, M. Ardra Krishnan, Aleena Maria Jose, Susan Jacob
Counsel for Respondents:
Advocates Santheep Ankarath, J. Ramkumar
Case No: Mat. Appeal 291 of 2020
Case Title: x v y
