BEXY MICHAEL Vs. MICHAEL A J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the nature, extent and quality of evidence which a prudent person would expect and demand in the facts and circumstances of the case to come to a safe conclusion about ornaments and cash which had changed hands at the time of marriage This is the crucial question, the answer to which must resolve the controversy in this appeal.

(2.) The parties are divorced spouses now. Their marriage took place on 6-9-2003. The spouses started separate residence on 28-11-2006. A girl child aged about 5 years on the date of the petition was born in the matrimony. It was an acrimonious marriage. The husband filed an application for divorce as O.P. No. 117/07. The wife evidently did not think it worthwhile to fight in a court of law to salvage the marriage. She instead came to the Family Court with O.P. No. 195/07 with a claim for return of money and gold. Be it noted that at that time the petition for divorce was also pending before the Family Court.

(3.) The contention of the wife, to put it in a nutshell, is that an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs and 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments had changed hands at the time of marriage. Of this, she had taken back 40 sovereigns and 10 sovereigns were remaining in the custody of her husband. She specifically asserted that the gold and ornaments were handed over in the presence of Eeendickal Appachan-the direct paternal uncle of the husband. She prayed that the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs may be ordered to be returned with interest at the rate of 10% per annum and the value of gold ornaments weighing 10 sovereigns which remained in the custody of the husband which he valued at Rs. 66,000 (at the rate of Rs. 6,600 per sovereign) may be ordered to be returned along with interest at such rate as may be fixed by the court.