JUDGMENT : M.B. Snehalatha, J. 1. The appellant is the petitioner in O.P. No.187/2022 of Family Court, Muvattupuzha. The said Original Petition seeking return of gold ornaments and cash was allowed in part by the Family Court by granting a decree for return of cash. Aggrieved by the declinment of her claim for return of gold ornaments, she has preferred this appeal. 2. The parties shall be referred to by their rank in O.P. No.187/2022. 3. Petitioner’s case is that her marriage with the 1 st respondent was solemnized on 10.3.2002; that at the time of marriage, she was given 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of Rs. 1 lakh. In the wedlock, three children were born to them. 2 nd respondent is the mother and 3 rd respondent is the sister of the 1 st respondent. Respondents misappropriated the entire gold ornaments and cash of the petitioner to meet their personal needs. Apart from Rs. 1 lakh given at the time of marriage, petitioner had brought another sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from her house for the purpose of reconstructing the house of the respondents. Respondents subjected the petitioner to cruelty and on 7.8.2016 they ousted her from the matrimonial home. She filed the Original Petition claiming return of 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of Rs. 2,50,000/- misappropriated by the respondents. 4. Respondents filed objection denying the case of the petitioner that she had 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments. They also denied the receipt of Rs. 1 lakh from the parents of the petitioner. According to them, petitioner hails from a poor family; that they never demanded any cash or gold at the time of marriage and they have not taken the gold ornaments of the petitioner. Petitioner herself was dealing with her gold ornaments and it is in her possession and respondents have not misappropriated any gold ornaments of the petitioner. 5. As mentioned in the opening paragraph, the learned Family Court allowed the Original Petition in part, granting relief of return of cash of Rs. 2.5 lakhs with 6% interest. But the relief sought for return of gold ornaments was declined. 6. The finding of the learned Family Court that petitioner was given Rs. 1 lakh from her house in connection with her marriage and subsequently a further sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs with 6% interest. But the relief sought for return of gold ornaments was declined. 6. The finding of the learned Family Court that petitioner was given Rs. 1 lakh from her house in connection with her marriage and subsequently a further sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was given for reconstruction of the house of the 1 st respondent and the respondents are liable to return the said amount to the petitioner has become final as there is no challenge by the respondents from that part of the judgment and decree. 7. The only question for consideration in this appeal is whether the finding of the Family Court declining the relief of return of gold ornaments needs any interference by this Court. 8. The parties are Muslims. Admittedly, the marriage between the petitioner and the 1 st respondent was solemnized on 10.3.2002. The petitioner, who was examined as PW1 has testified that at the time of fixing the marriage, there was an understanding between her family members and the family members of the 1 st respondent that 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs. 1 lakh would be given to her as patrimony. According to her, on the date of marriage, she had adorned with 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Her case is that her entire gold ornaments were misappropriated by the respondents by selling it on various occasions. 9. PW2 is the brother of PW1. He has also testified that at the time of marriage, petitioner was given 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of Rs. 1 lakh. Subsequently, another sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was given for renovation of the matrimonial home of the petitioner. He has also testified that respondents misappropriated the entire gold ornaments of the petitioner, and they subjected the petitioner to cruelty. 10. As against the case of the petitioner, 1 st respondent, who was examined as RW1, has testified that the petitioner hails from a poor family; that she had only 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. He denied to have received any amount from the petitioner's family either at the time of marriage or subsequently. 10. As against the case of the petitioner, 1 st respondent, who was examined as RW1, has testified that the petitioner hails from a poor family; that she had only 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. He denied to have received any amount from the petitioner's family either at the time of marriage or subsequently. He has further testified that his mother, namely the 2 nd respondent, is suffering from serious ailments; that her entire treatment expenses were met by his sister namely the 3 rd respondent and accordingly, his mother/2 nd respondent sold 10 cents of property and returned the treatment expenses to the 3 rd respondent. According to him, he has not taken any gold ornaments of the petitioner; that her entire gold ornaments are with her. He has further testified that petitioner herself had sold her gold ornaments to raise funds for going abroad. 11. It is a settled position of law that the controversy in most of the matrimonial cases has to be decided on the basis of oral evidence. Rather than demanding strict legal proof, courts have to rely on the principle of preponderance of probabilities in such cases. The preponderance of probability refers to the greater likelihood of one event or fact or another. It is not about certainty or eliminating all doubts but rather about weighing evidence to see which side presents a more probable scenario. 12. In Dr. N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the standard of proof in matrimonial cases would be the same as in civil cases i.e. the court has to decide cases based on preponderance of probabilities. It is a settled position of law that the standards of prudent man are paramount and the disputed question of fact has to be resolved on the touchstone of probabilities and absolute certainty is not the requirement under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act and the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities. 13. The specific case of the petitioner is that her 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments were misappropriated by the respondent by selling the same on various occasions. In the petition, she has shown the details of her gold ornaments misappropriated by the respondents. 14. Respondents have no case that petitioner had no gold ornaments at the time of marriage. 13. The specific case of the petitioner is that her 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments were misappropriated by the respondent by selling the same on various occasions. In the petition, she has shown the details of her gold ornaments misappropriated by the respondents. 14. Respondents have no case that petitioner had no gold ornaments at the time of marriage. Their case is that she had only 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments. At the time of evidence, RW1 has also stated that petitioner sold her gold ornaments for the purpose of going abroad. But it is to be borne in mind that in the counter statement, respondents have no case that at the time of marriage petitioner had only 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Likewise, in the counter statement respondents have no case that petitioner sold her gold ornaments for the purpose of going abroad. Such contentions are put forward by the respondents for the first time at the time of evidence, which were not pleaded in the counter statement. In the judgment impugned, the Family Court has rightly observed that there is no reason to disbelieve the version of PW1 and PW2 that at the time of marriage, petitioner was given 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of Rs. 1 lakh from her house. 15. Though RW1 would say that the gold ornaments of the petitioner were sold by the petitioner herself for the purpose of going abroad, there is no evidence to show that petitioner sold the gold ornaments. R1 and R2 failed to give any plausible, reliable and acceptable explanation as to what happened to the gold ornaments of the petitioner which had adorned on the wedding day and brought to the matrimonial home. There is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the version of PW1 and PW2 that her gold ornaments were sold on various occasions by R1 and R2 while she was residing with RW1 at her matrimonial home. 16. We cannot, therefore, approve the view of the learned Family Court that the appellant is not entitled to recover the gold ornaments merely because the petitioner/PW1 has not specifically pleaded and adduced evidence regarding the manner in which the same were entrusted with the respondents, or in the description and weight of gold ornaments sold by the respondents. 17. 16. We cannot, therefore, approve the view of the learned Family Court that the appellant is not entitled to recover the gold ornaments merely because the petitioner/PW1 has not specifically pleaded and adduced evidence regarding the manner in which the same were entrusted with the respondents, or in the description and weight of gold ornaments sold by the respondents. 17. The learned Court omitted to appreciate that the marriage of the parties was in the year 2002, while the Original Petition was filed 20 years later, in the year 2022. It is the firm case of PW1 that, during this time, the gold had been sold by the respondents 1 and 2 on various occasions. Obviously, therefore, it could never be insisted that the appellant should produce documents to establish the purchase of gold, or to prove the entrustment, through documentary evidence, which is, in any case, impossible. 18. As said above, the learned Court has already found that the evidence of PW1, as also that of her brother as PW2, remains without being discredited in spite of very strong cross examination. Resultantly, its further view that the endorsement of the gold ought to have been proved beyond oral evidence, cannot be supported. Coupled with this, the attempt of RW1 to allege that the appellant had sold gold to go abroad remains without any veracity. 19. During cross examination, petitioner has admitted that 3 rd respondent, who was married away, used to visit the house of R1 and R2 only occasionally. The petitioner has also admitted that 2 nd respondent alone was residing along with the petitioner and R1. There is no evidence to show that 3 rd respondent misappropriated the gold ornaments of the petitioner. 20. The evidence on record would show that 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments of the petitioner were misappropriated by R1. Hence petitioner is entitled to get back 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments from R1. 21. In the result, appeal allowed against R1 and R2 as follows: i) R1 and R2 shall return 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the petitioner or its market value as on the date of return. ii) R1 and R2 are liable to pay the cost also.