The Kerala High Court, while disposing of two matrimonial appeals arising out of a family dispute between a husband and wife, partly upheld the judgment of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha and held that the order directing return of stridhan upon dissolution of marriage was justified.
The Court found that the gold ornaments were purchased using the amount given by the wife’s relatives at the time of marriage and that the ornaments were retained by the husband and his father. Accordingly, the direction to return 28 sovereigns of gold and ₹2 lakh was upheld.
Clarifying the legal position, the Court found that,
“It is clear from the evidence that money was given to the appellant for purchasing the gold for the respondent. Thus, the appellant or his father cannot evade their responsibility to return the ornaments by merely returning the amount entrusted at the time of engagement.”
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar, which upheld the decree of divorce granted to the husband on the ground of desertion. While affirming the order, directing the opposite party to return of gold ornaments and money to the wife, the Bench set aside the award of past maintenance granted in her favour.
On the issue of maintenance, the Court held that,
“………….she deserted him without any reasonable cause or justification. It is relevant to note that, as per Section 37 of the Act, before awarding alimony to a wife, the court has to consider her conduct. Having found that the respondent deserted the appellant, the trial court ought not have awarded past maintenance to her. To the above extent, the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered with.”
The dispute arose from petitions filed before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha where the husband sought dissolution of marriage, while the wife sought return of 28 sovereigns of gold ornaments, ₹2 lakh in cash, and maintenance. The Family Court granted divorce and directed payment of gold, money and past maintenance.
Aggrieved by the order, the husband approached the High Court challenging the refusal to grant divorce on additional grounds of cruelty and adultery, as well as the financial reliefs awarded to the wife.
With respect to the maintenance, the High Court noticed that once it had been conclusively held that the wife had voluntarily deserted the husband without any reasonable cause, her claim for past maintenance was not sustainable.
Consequently, the award of past maintenance to the wife was set aside, while the maintenance awarded to the minor child was left undisturbed, there being no challenge to the same.
During the hearing, it was brought to the Court’s notice that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 08 June 2003 in accordance with the religious rites and customs of the Christian community. Following matrimonial discord, the wife claimed return of ₹2,00,000/- and 28 sovereigns of gold ornaments, contending that at the time of marriage, her relatives had entrusted ₹3,50,000/- to the father of the husband towards her share in the parental property.
It was further claimed that out of this amount, ₹1,50,000/- was utilised to purchase 44 sovereigns of gold ornaments for her. According to the wife, except for ornaments used for daily wear, the remaining gold continued to remain in the custody of the husband’s father.
She also alleged that after she went to her parental home during pregnancy, the husband failed to take her back even after the birth of the child.
On the other hand, counsel for the appellant-husband contended that although ₹3,50,000/- was received, the 44 sovereigns of gold worn by the wife at the time of marriage were purchased by him from his personal funds. It was also contended that the gold ornaments purchased by him were still in the possession of the wife, who was bound to return the same.
The wife, however, asserted that the husband was employed with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and earning ₹12,000/- per month, and therefore, sought past maintenance of ₹49,500/- for herself and ₹16,000/- for the child. The husband opposed the claim on the ground that the wife had deserted him.
The principal issue before the High Court was whether the wife was entitled to recover the gold ornaments and money claimed by her. On this aspect, the Court noted that the appellant had not pleaded, either in his pleadings or in his main affidavit, that the gold ornaments were purchased prior to the engagement. The Court observed that if the gold had indeed been purchased prior to the engagement, the amount entrusted at the time of engagement could not have been utilised for such purchase.
On a holistic appreciation of the evidence, the Court concluded that the ornaments were purchased using a portion of the amount given at the time of engagement.
The Court further noted that,
“It is a matter common knowledge that, upon reaching the matrimonial home after marriage, a bride may not retain all her gold ornaments in her personal possession. Ordinarily, such ornaments are kept in the custody of the husband or his close relatives for safekeeping. In this case, the appellant himself admitted during cross-examination that the gold ornaments were kept in his custody after the marriage.”
In view of the above findings, the High Court held that the husband and his father could not avoid their obligation to return the gold ornaments by merely refunding the amount entrusted at the time of engagement.
Accordingly, the Family Court’s order directing return of gold ornaments and money was upheld, while the award of past maintenance to the wife was set aside. All other directions were affirmed.
Details of Case: Mat. Appeal No. 537 of 2014 and Mat. Appeal No. 538 of 2014
Date of Order: 29.01.2026
See order: xxx vs xxx
