Kerala High Court orders husband to return 73 sovereigns of gold after ATM records expose ‘meagre income’ claims

With inputs by Sumit Kumar Singh

The Kerala High Court has directed a man and his family to return 72¾ sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs 10.88 lakh to his estranged wife, along with revised interest rates.

A bench of Justices Sathish Ninan and P Krishna Kumar was hearing an appeal of the husband and his family members against a family court order directing the return of gold and money to the woman.

“The gold and money belonging to the petitioner is liable to be returned to her,” the court said on February 16.

the court compared salary records of both spouses and found that the husband had only a “very meagre income” during the relevant period. (Image enhanced using AI)

ATM transfers, euro credits

• On the monetary claim, the wife alleged that her husband misused her ATM card and online banking access while they were in Ireland and transferred funds to his mother’s account in India.
• Bank statements showed multiple credits in Euros into the mother-in-law’s account.
• The husband contended that he had sent the money from his own earnings in Ireland.
• However, the court compared salary records of both spouses and found that the husband had only a “very meagre income” during the relevant period.
• The bench also took note of certified copies of the wife’s Irish bank account statements, which showed transfers on specific dates including December 20, 2011, March 2 and 16, 2012, May 22, 2012, September 3, 2012 and November 22, 2012 directly to the mother-in-law’s account.
• Though the family court had initially hesitated to rely on certain electronic documents citing lack of certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, the high court clarified that strict rules of evidence do not strictly apply to family court proceedings.
• “We do not find any reason to doubt the genuineness” of the bank records, the bench held, affirming the finding that Rs 10,88,529 was transferred from the wife’s account to the second respondent.

High court on quantity of gold: ‘Probable retention’

• It is only probable that she must have retained with her sufficient quantity of ornaments that a mere chain, for her daily wear.
• We reckon such a quantity to be approximately 10 sovereigns.
• We hold that the respondents are liable to be returned 72 ¾ sovereigns of gold ornaments to the petitioner.
• Before the high court, the appellants questioned both the quantity of gold and the monetary decree.
• The bench noted that the husband’s family had not specifically denied the wife’s claim that she possessed 85 sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage.
• Marriage photographs and the testimony of the photographer were relied upon to assess the quantity of ornaments worn.
• Bank records also showed that Rs 8 lakh was withdrawn by the wife’s mother on the wedding day, allegedly towards purchase of gold ornaments.
• The court further relied on locker access records, which revealed that the locker was operated by the husband and mother-in-law on multiple occasions.
• The claim that the locker was opened to store ornaments belonging to the brother’s wife from the United
• States was rejected, particularly since neither the brother nor his wife were examined in court.
• However, the high court slightly reduced the gold quantity from 80¾ sovereigns to 72¾ sovereigns.
• Accordingly, the liability was fixed at 72¾ sovereigns.

Final directions

• Allowing the appeal in part, the high court directed the respondents to return 72¾ sovereigns of gold within one month, failing which the wife would be entitled to realise its market value at the time of recovery.
• Pay Rs 10,88,529 with 9 per cent interest from the date of original petition till February 16, 2026 (date of decree), and per cent interest thereafter till realisation.

Liability of in-laws upheld

• The appellants argued that the brother (third respondent) should not have been held liable.
• However, the court found that there were specific allegations regarding common benefit and involvement of all respondents, and the family court’s acceptance of the wife’s version did not warrant interference.

Interest rate reduced

• The family court had awarded interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till decree and 6 per cent.
• Considering prevailing rates, the high court modified this component, reducing the pre-decree interest to 9 per cent per annum while retaining 6 per cent per annum post-decree.

Marriage, locker, alleged entrustment of gold

• Parvathy Unnithan and Manesh Krishnan got married on May 5, 2011.
• At the time, the wife was employed in Ireland.
• According to her plea, she possessed 85 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage.
• She contended that on May 6, 2011, the very next day of the wedding, she entrusted nearly all her gold ornaments, except a two-sovereign chain, to her husband and mother-in-law for safe custody in a bank locker.
• The locker, notably, had been opened on April 25, 2011, just 10 days before the wedding, in the names of the husband and his mother.
• After returning to Ireland on June 4, 2011, the wife alleged that the ornaments were sold and the proceeds used to clear a housing loan of the husband’s family.
• The husband, mother-in-law and brother denied the allegations and challenged the family court’s decree in appeal.

Family court’s findings

• The family court, Thiruvalla, in its August 14, 2019 judgment, had directed the respondents to return 80¾ sovereigns of gold and pay Rs 10,88,529 out of the wife’s claim of Rs 22.5 lakh.
• The claim relating to a separate Rs 7.5 lakh loan was rejected, and since there was no appeal on that aspect by the wife, the high court did not consider it further.

Sumit is an intern with The Indian Express.