The Supreme Court addressed the issue of misappropriation of stridhan (gold jewellery) in a matrimonial dispute. The appellant, Maya Gopinathan, alleged that her husband and his mother took custody of her 89 sovereigns of gold under the guise of safekeeping, but misappropriated it to settle financial liabilities. The Family Court found in favor of the appellant, but the Kerala High Court reversed the judgment, doubting the existence of the gold. The Supreme Court overruled the High Court's findings, reinstating the Family Court's decision and awarding Rs. 25 lakh to the appellant, considering the passage of time and inflation. The judgment reaffirmed that misappropriation of stridhan is a civil wrong and not dependent on criminal standards of proof.

1. Introduction (Paras 1-4):

• Parties Involved: Maya Gopinathan (Appellant) vs. Anoop S.B. & Another (Respondents).
• Facts: The marriage between the appellant and the first respondent, solemnized on May 4, 2003, faced disputes. The appellant alleged misappropriation of her jewellery by the respondents.
• High Court Ruling: Kerala High Court dismissed the appellant’s claim regarding the gold.

2. Background of the Case (Paras 5-10):

• Allegation: Maya claimed that 89 sovereigns of gold were taken by her husband and mother-in-law under the guise of safekeeping on the first night of marriage, but were instead used to clear pre-existing debts.
• Family Court: Found in favor of Maya, ordering compensation.
• High Court: Overturned the Family Court, doubting the misappropriation due to lack of documentary evidence.

3. Legal Analysis (Paras 11-20):

• Standard of Proof: The Supreme Court highlighted that civil cases require proof based on a "preponderance of probabilities," not "beyond reasonable doubt." The High Court wrongly demanded a criminal level of proof.
• Evidence: Despite the absence of documentary evidence, the appellant’s consistent testimony supported by photographs established the existence and misappropriation of the jewellery.

4. Supreme Court's Findings (Paras 21-30):

• Jewellery Misappropriation: The Court held that the husband's custody of the jewellery for safekeeping was plausible, given the mutual trust expected in a marriage.
• *Entrustment of Stridhan: The Court reaffirmed that stridhan belongs solely to the wife, and any misuse by the husband or his family constitutes misappropriation.

5. Conclusion and Compensation (Paras 31-39):

• Ruling: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the Family Court’s order, and awarded Rs. 25 lakh compensation to account for the time elapsed and inflation.
• Final Directive: The respondent was ordered to pay Rs. 25 lakh to the appellant within six months, or face interest penalties.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 406: Criminal breach of trust, relevant in discussing the misappropriation of stridhan.
• Hindu Marriage Act, Section 13: Decree for dissolution of marriage.
• Article 142 of the Constitution: Empowering the Court to provide complete justice by awarding Rs. 25 lakh compensation.

Ratio Decidendi:

The Court emphasized that stridhan is the absolute property of the wife, and its misappropriation is a civil wrong that can be adjudicated on the balance of probabilities, rather than requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The erroneous approach of the High Court in demanding a criminal standard of proof was corrected.

Subjects:

Matrimonial Dispute, Stridhan Misappropriation, Civil Litigation

Matrimonial Rights, Misappropriation, Civil Standard of Proof