A wife may prove her claim for return of matrimonial gold on a preponderance of probabilities.

The Family Court, Vellore, granted a divorce and directed the appellant husband to return 20 sovereigns of gold to the respondent wife.

The wife had claimed 40 sovereigns but did not appeal the order limiting recovery to 20.

The husband appealed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the direction to return the gold.

He disputed the evidence of the jewels and their entrustment; the wife relied on purchase bills, a seer varisai list and photographs.

1. Whether the evidence before the Family Court sufficiently supported its direction that the husband return 20 sovereigns of gold to the wife.

2. Whether the husband established that the wife had taken back the gold when she left the matrimonial home.

The appeal was brought under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

The Court stated that a wife claiming the return of gold articles must prove her claim on a preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt.

The initial burden of proving entrustment rests on the wife; once discharged, the burden shifts to the husband to explain what happened to the gold.

Relevant evidence may include purchase bills, gift lists, photographs, witness statements and the wife’s sworn account, assessed in light of the parties’ consistency and the probabilities of their respective versions.

No precedents were cited.

The wife produced bills dated around the time of the marriage, supported by a seer varisai list and photographs.

The husband did not establish that the bills were fabricated.

The Court also noted that the husband’s testimony that the wife received 12 sovereigns conflicted with his father’s evidence that she received none.

The wife had consistently sought return of the gold, including in police complaints, while the husband failed to prove that she took it when leaving the matrimonial home.

On the evidence as a whole, the Court found the Family Court’s order for 20 sovereigns supported by the applicable standard of proof.

It dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit, made no order as to costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.