Inability to produce documentary evidence; HC about misappropriation of gold ornaments in marital disputes

KOCHI: The High Court warned that the inability to produce written proof of gold ornaments given to women during marriage should not lead to a denial of justice. The division bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha observed that since the transfers of such jewellery are private, women are unable to present evidence.

It was also clarified that courts should not insist on written evidence in cases where the arguments can be judged to be truthful. The High Court was considering an appeal filed by a woman from Kalamassery against the family court's rejection of her request to return her gold jewellery and household goods after she separated from her husband.

At the time of marriage, the petitioner was given 71 sovereigns' gold by her family. However, the family court upheld the husband's argument that the petitioner had returned this jewellery when she became pregnant. It was also pointed out that the petitioner failed to prove her claims in the case.

In the meantime, the high court held the husband's argument that the petitioner took the gold back as not credible, saying that it was highly unlikely for the petitioner to take all of her gold ornaments during such a predicament. Therefore, the court directed the husband to give the petitioner the amount of gold jewellery equal to its market value. At the same time, it was clarified that the demand to release household items cannot be granted as the argument required more clarification.