JUDGMENT : Shaffique, J. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 18/11/2005 in O.P.No.640 of 2004 of the Family Court, Thiruvalla by which the petition filed by the appellant herein seeking recovery of patrimony and return of gold ornaments had been dismissed. 2. Parties are described as shown in the original petition and the short facts of the case are as under: The petitioner and the respondent got married on 13/01/1996 as per the Christian religious rites and ceremonies. The marriage was declared null and void as per the judgment in O.P.No.351/2003. According to the petitioner, Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by petitioner's mother to the respondents on 23/12/1995, on the date of betrothal. It is alleged that she had 12 sovereigns of gold ornaments and the respondents, that is the husband of the petitioner, his father and mother have forcibly taken possession of 10 sovereigns of gold and misappropriated the same. It is also alleged that the patrimony given to her for her benefit was not utilized for her progress and hence the petition was filed seeking return of 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value and an amount of Rs.1 lakh. 3. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. Objection was filed by respondent 2 and 3 disputing the claim. According to them, they have not taken possession of the gold ornaments or the money. It is alleged that, at the time of negotiating the marriage, petitioner's mother promised to pay Rs.1 lakh after one year, but the said amount was not paid. 4. The evidence consisted of oral testimony of PWs 1 to 3 and Exts.A1 to A4. On the side of the respondent, the 2nd respondent was examined as RW1. The Family Court, after considering the evidence on record, observed that there is no reliable evidence to arrive at a finding regarding payment of Rs.1 lakh on 23/12/1995 and there is no material to indicate that the petitioner was in possession of gold ornaments, as claimed and accordingly, dismissed the petition. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the fact of payment of Rs.1 lakh had been proved in the case whereas, the Court below did not properly appreciate the factual materials available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the fact of payment of Rs.1 lakh had been proved in the case whereas, the Court below did not properly appreciate the factual materials available on record. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 clearly proved the entrustment of money as well as the availability of gold ornaments and going by the judgment of this Court in Bexy Michael v. A.J.Michael [2010(4) KHC 376], the petitioner's claim stands proved. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that there was no occasion for the parents of 1st respondent to receive any amount and there is no reason why such a liability could be mulcted on them. The Family Court was justified in arriving at a conclusion that evidence was lacking to prove the claim made by the petitioner. 7. The short issue to be considered in the appeal is whether the appellant/petitioner is entitled for the claim made in the original petition and whether the respondents have any obligation to pay any amount as claimed. 8. First of all, it is relevant to note that the 1st respondent was ex parte and did not contest the matter. Secondly, pleadings in the case clearly indicate that the money and the gold ornaments were entrusted to the respondents. In the petition, it is specifically alleged that a sum of Rs.1 lakh was paid by the petitioner's mother to the respondents as patrimony on 23/12/1995, the date of betrothal. Further, it is alleged that 10 sovereigns of gold was available with the petitioner and it was forcibly taken over by the respondents shortly after the marriage. The particulars of the gold ornaments have also been mentioned. 8. In the objection filed, it is contended that petitioner's mother has not entrusted any amount to the respondents and no amount was received as patrimony either on 23/12/1995 or any other date. The respondents also denied having received Rs.1 lakh. However, it is stated that, at the time of negotiation of marriage, petitioner's mother offered to pay Rs.1 lakh after one year when the brother of the petitioner will come for vacation. 9. Petitioner's mother was examined as PW1. In her evidence, she had stated that after the betrothal ceremony on 23/12/1995, she had given Rs.1 lakh to the 2nd respondent. 9. Petitioner's mother was examined as PW1. In her evidence, she had stated that after the betrothal ceremony on 23/12/1995, she had given Rs.1 lakh to the 2nd respondent. Her siblings and respondent Nos.1 and 3 and the brother of 2nd respondent were also present. She further stated that, in December 1993, money was withdrawn from her son's bank account when there was some proposal for marriage, which did not take place. That amount was given to her brother, Jacob Varghese for business purpose who used to give her Rs.1,500/- for household expenses. He is dealing in timber business. He had given the money in December 1995. She further stated that she had given 12 sovereigns of gold to her daughter. But, when she came back, she was having only a chain weighing 2 sovereigns. During cross-examination, she stated that an amount of Rs.1 lakh was entrusted at 1.00 pm on 23/12/1995. She further stated that the gold ornaments were purchased from Excel Jewellary at Ranni. She also deposed that she had given the money since her husband was not alive and the money was paid by cash and she does not remember the denomination of the currency. She further stated that, in addition to her siblings, some neighbours were also present. The money was given before the feast was over. 10. PW2 is the petitioner/appellant. In her chief examination, she had stated about the entrustment of gold ornaments as well as Rs.1 lakh. In cross examination, she deposed that Rs.1 lakh was given by her brother to her uncle for which he was paying interest. The money was given by noon on 23/12/2005 after the engagement and after the first trip of food was served, at the request of the respondents. They had come to petitioner's house and the money was handed over to them. PW3 is Sri. Jacob Varghese, uncle of the petitioner. He also had given evidence regarding handing over of Rs.1 lakh on 23/12/1995. It is stated that the money was given at around 1 p.m. 11. RW1 is the 2nd respondent. He spoke in accordance with the averments in the objection. 12. Ext.A3 is an extract of bank statement in the name of James Philip. It is produced to show that Rs.1 lakh was drawn on 14/12/1993 and further Rs.1 lakh was credited on 26/03/1995. 13. RW1 is the 2nd respondent. He spoke in accordance with the averments in the objection. 12. Ext.A3 is an extract of bank statement in the name of James Philip. It is produced to show that Rs.1 lakh was drawn on 14/12/1993 and further Rs.1 lakh was credited on 26/03/1995. 13. While appreciating evidence in a claim made before a Family Court, the question to be considered is whether the case set up by the petitioner/wife is believable based on the well settled principle of preponderance of probabilities. In most of the cases, direct evidence may not be available. In such circumstances, what is to be considered is whether the available evidence is believable and whether the materials placed on record probabilises a case as pleaded by the parties. In Bexy Michael (supra), a Division Bench of this Court had considered similar issues and held at paragraphs 12, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 24 as under: "12. It would be puerile for this Court to ignore the reality that in a Christian marriage more often than not properties/money changes hands at the time of marriage. This has traditional and historical reasons. It is not as though there can be no Christian marriage where property has not changed hands. A prudent person would certainly take note of the reality in raw life that property does change hands on the occasion of the marriage usually and normally in a Christian marriage. The instant one was a purely arranged traditional and conventional marriage. That fact is not disputed. (1) 2009 (4) K.H.C. 853." "15. On the touch stone of probabilities all matters will have to be considered and a decision has to be arrived at on a disputed question of fact by a court of facts. It would be unreasonable, irrational, puerile and perverse for a court in the given circumstances to look for documentary evidence regarding the ornaments and money that had changed hands at the time of marriage. The standards of a prudent man have to be adopted by the court and if a person insists on such documentary evidence to prove the transaction, he would undoubtedly be a very poor specimen of a prudent person. The absence of documentary evidence on which reliance has been placed heavily by the respondent, is thus found to be without any merit or substance. 16. The absence of documentary evidence on which reliance has been placed heavily by the respondent, is thus found to be without any merit or substance. 16. The controversy in most, if not all cases, will have to be decided on the basis of oral evidence. It would be traversity of justice for a Family Court to throw its hands up and merely proceed to dismiss a claim for the simple reason that documentary evidence has not been made available. Strain if necessary, the court must decide whether the assertions and counter assertions made are true or false and which sets of assertions and counter assertions on oath can and need be safely accepted." "18. Evidently, P.W.I could not adduce any better evidence than oral evidence. It is stated before us that certain photographs were taken at the time of the marriage. They could not be proved as the negatives are not available. Even if the matter were sent back, the photographs cannot be proved as insisted by law, it is conceded. Of course, P.W.1 could have examined her father or her relatives to prove the quantum of money and ornaments which changed hands. At any rate, those pieces of evidence could not have commanded any better respectability or acceptability than the oral evidence of P.W.1 herself. So, according to us, it would be irrational for a court to find fault with P.W.1 for not examining any other witness (from her side) who participated in the betrothal or marriage to prove the property/cash that had changed hands. No one has a case that there is any record in the Church concerned of the property that had changed hands. 19. Driven to the wall, the claimant wife could only choose to attempt to prove her assertions by oral evidence. She did not choose to examine any witness on her side. Instead she took the risk of examining two witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3, who are none other than the direct paternal uncles (father's brothers) of her husband. It is not as though she attempted to spring a surprise on the husband by examining his uncles. Even in the original petition filed by her she had clearly stated that ornaments and currency changed hands in the presence of Eeendigal Appachan examined as P.W.3." "24. We have adverted to the nature of the pleadings and evidence. It is not as though she attempted to spring a surprise on the husband by examining his uncles. Even in the original petition filed by her she had clearly stated that ornaments and currency changed hands in the presence of Eeendigal Appachan examined as P.W.3." "24. We have adverted to the nature of the pleadings and evidence. Would a reasonable and prudent person throw over board the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and the admissions made by R.W.1 in cross- examination and reject the claim of the wife for return of ornaments and cash? This is the crucial question to be considered. We have no hesitation to agree that the courts cannot be pedantic and Utopian in the matter of appreciation of oral evidence. The compelling indications available in this case must suggest to a prudent person that it is safer, reasonable, just and prudent to accept and act upon the oral evidence of P.W.I which is convincingly supported by the pleadings and also the evidence tendered by P.Ws. 2 and 3, the direct paternal uncles of the respondent. It would be a traversity of truth, justice and reasonableness to throw over board the entire evidence and reject the claim lock, stock and barrel for the only reason that still better evidence has not been placed before the court. Absolute certainty is not the requirement under Sec.3 of the Evidence Act. In a civil case rival contentions and rival evidence will have to be considered, assessed, evaluated and weighed to come to a conclusion whether the burden on the claimant has been discharged. Adopting that yardstick we find no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the court below had erred grossly in not accepting the case of the claimant/wife. No reasonable person could have insisted on better evidence. Better evidence may not be an absolute impossibility. If negatives were there, photographs could have been produced and proved to show the quantum of ornaments worn by the wife at the time of marriage. If there were some entry in the relevant Church records, they could have been produced to show that the properties had changed hands. If the marriage were settled in the presence of the mediators defining the terms of marriage such mediators could have been examined. Significantly, even the respondent does not have a case that such pieces of materials/evidence would be available in this case. If the marriage were settled in the presence of the mediators defining the terms of marriage such mediators could have been examined. Significantly, even the respondent does not have a case that such pieces of materials/evidence would be available in this case. If so, he could have produced it at least he could have pursued that aspect in the course of cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 to 3." 14. Viewed in the light of the principles laid down in the judgment in Bexy Michael (supra), it is rather clear that there is evidence of payment of Rs.1 lakh to the 2nd respondent on the date of betrothal. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents tries to point out certain discrepancies in the number of persons present and the time at which the money was paid. PW1 and PW3 had stated that the money was paid at around 1 p.m. and according to PW2, after the first trip of the food being served. However, there is a statement by PW3 which indicates that the money was paid at 11.30 a.m. But, immediately before the said deposition, he said that the money was paid at around 1 p.m and probably the deposition which shows as 11 ½ might be either 1.00 or 1 ½ p.m. At any rate, the question to be considered is whether the version of the petitioner and her witnesses are believable or not. 15. The source of fund has been proved by producing Ext.A3. The brother of the petitioner was abroad and he had sent money. According to PWs 1 to 3, the money was entrusted with PW3, who was doing timber business and he was paying interest for the said amount to PW1. He had returned the amount at the time of marriage and the said amount was paid at the time of betrothal. There is no reason to disbelieve the above version and therefore, we are of the view that there is proof of payment of Rs.1 lakh as patrimony which is liable to be refunded by the respondents. 16. In regard to the gold ornaments of 10 sovereigns, the pleading is that it was forcibly taken by the respondents. Under what circumstances the appellants herein had forcibly taken the gold ornaments is not explained. Of course, the 1st respondent remaining ex parte. He would have utilized the said gold ornaments for his own purpose. 16. In regard to the gold ornaments of 10 sovereigns, the pleading is that it was forcibly taken by the respondents. Under what circumstances the appellants herein had forcibly taken the gold ornaments is not explained. Of course, the 1st respondent remaining ex parte. He would have utilized the said gold ornaments for his own purpose. In the pleading, the entrustment of gold ornaments to respondents 2 and 3 and its misappropriation had not been specifically stated. Whereas, it is stated that "the respondents forcibly took 10 sovereigns of gold from the petitioner shortly after the marriage". The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 clearly indicate that the petitioner had 12 sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage, of which 10 sovereigns was taken by the respondents. As far as respondents 2 and 3 are concerned, there is no material to arrive at a finding as to whether they have appropriated the ornaments. In other words, evidence is lacking in the matter relating to appropriation. PW2 alone can speak about the said appropriation. In her evidence, she had only stated that when she returned back, she had only 2 sovereigns of gold. 10 sovereigns were entrusted to the 3rd respondent. Ext.A4 series are the photographs. During cross- examination, she was asked a suggestive question that the ornaments was not entrusted to the 3rd respondent, for which her answer was that it was not correct. In fact, there is no pleading regarding entrustment of gold ornaments with the 3rd respondent, whereas it is stated that the ornaments were forcibly taken by the respondents. The 1st respondent is ex parte and therefore, it is appropriate to grant a decree in favour of the petitioner against the 1st respondent as he had not disputed the aforesaid fact. However, there is no material to grant a decree against respondents 2 and 3 as far as the gold ornaments are concerned. 16. Taking into account the aforesaid factual situation and the evidence discussed above, we are of the view that the Family Court was not justified in dismissing the claim whereas the appellant/petitioner is entitled for a decree in the following manner: In the result, the Mat. Appeal is allowed as under: (i) The judgment and decree in O.P.No.640/2004 is set aside. Taking into account the aforesaid factual situation and the evidence discussed above, we are of the view that the Family Court was not justified in dismissing the claim whereas the appellant/petitioner is entitled for a decree in the following manner: In the result, the Mat. Appeal is allowed as under: (i) The judgment and decree in O.P.No.640/2004 is set aside. (ii) O.P.No.640/2004 is allowed and the following decree is passed: (a) The respondents are directed to pay the petitioner/appellant a sum of Rs.1 lakh with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of petition till realisation. (b) The 1st respondent is directed to return to the petitioner 10 gold sovereigns or its value of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only). The said amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. (c) Parties shall bear their own costs.