JUDGMENT : P.Krishna Kumar, J. In a petition filed by the wife, the Family Court, Tirur, directed the appellants, the husband and the in-laws, to pay Rs. 6,78,000/- towards the value of 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments and further permitted the wife to recover Rs. 1,50,000/- from them. The court also directed the first appellant to pay the respondent Rs. 52,000/- as past maintenance for 13 months @ Rs. 4,000/- per month. The said order is under challenge in this appeal. 2. The respondent and the first appellant were married on 8.5.2011. The respondent contended that 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs. 1,50,000/- were entrusted to the appellants one month after their marriage, but the gold ornaments and the amount were misappropriated by the appellants without her knowledge. She also stated that she was unable to maintain herself and that the first appellant had sufficient means to maintain her, as he, being an auto- rickshaw owner, had an income of Rs. 30,000/- per month. Accordingly, the respondent sought recovery of the market value of the gold ornaments as on the date of petition, the money entrusted, and past maintenance for 13 months. 3. The appellants denied the above allegations. According to them, the gold ornaments worn by the respondent at the time of her marriage were only around 15 sovereigns. The assertion that money and gold ornaments were entrusted to the appellants, was stoutly denied by them. On the day of Bakrid in 2013, the respondent went to her home and thereafter did not return despite repeated requests by the first appellant, and thus she is not entitled to claim any maintenance, it is contended. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that, even as per the case of the respondent, she was not in a position to entrust 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the appellants, as 5 sovereigns of gold were merely lent to her by her father at the time of marriage. It is also argued that there is no direct evidence to prove the entrustment of Rs. 1,50,000/- with the appellants. It is also argued that there is no direct evidence to prove the entrustment of Rs. 1,50,000/- with the appellants. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial court had considered all these aspects and yet found in favour of the respondent based on the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and the documentary evidence. 6. First, let us consider the quantity of gold ornaments which might have been possessed by the respondent at the time of her marriage. The respondent states that, at the time of marriage, she had 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Out of this, 21 ½ sovereigns were purchased by her father from a jewellery shop named Nakshatra Gold. She produced Ext.A1 document to prove her contention. The above document and the oral evidence of PW1 to PW3 substantiate that 159.03 gms of gold ornaments worth Rs. 3,68,875/- were purchased for the respondent on 6.5.2011. This comes to around 20 sovereigns of gold. She further deposed that 3½ sovereigns of gold ornaments were gifted to her by the wife of her brother. We find her sworn deposition that she got 3½ sovereigns from her sister-in-law at the time of her marriage, reliable. In short, the respondent is able to show that 23 ½ sovereigns of gold ornaments were at her disposal at the time of her marriage. Another 5 sovereigns is claimed to have been lent by a relative. It can only be a temporary arrangement. There is no case that it has not been returned. Therefore, the said quantity cannot be reckoned. 7. Though it was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no convincing proof of the entrustment of the gold ornaments, after going through her evidence, we find no difficulty in relying on the testimony of the respondent to the extent that she entrusted some of her gold ornaments to her in-laws after the marriage. The trial court, having had the advantage of observing the demeanour of both the parties and the witnesses, accepted the oral testimony of PW1 to PW3 in preference to the evidence presented by the appellants. We find no reason to take a different course. 8. The trial court, having had the advantage of observing the demeanour of both the parties and the witnesses, accepted the oral testimony of PW1 to PW3 in preference to the evidence presented by the appellants. We find no reason to take a different course. 8. Furthermore, regard being had to the ordinary course of human conduct, it is only reasonable to infer that the respondent would have had at least 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments for her daily wear with her. 9. In the light of the foregoing discussion, it is reasonable to conclude that the respondent has succeeded in proving the entrustment of the remaining gold ornaments, namely 18½ sovereigns (i.e., 20 + 3½ - 5 = 18½) to the appellants. 10. It is settled law that when the court orders recovery of gold ornaments or, in the alternative, their market value, the current market value prevalent at the time of realisation should be awarded, even if no such relief is specifically sought in the petition (see Syamini S. Nair and Others v. Sreekanth R. , 2022 (3) KHC 145 ). The market value fixed in the impugned order is not consistent with the above proposition. Therefore, the impugned order requires interference. 11. As regards the entrustment of Rs. 1,50,000/- with the appellants, we find that the oral evidence adduced by the respondent is not sufficient to accept such a contention. The consistent case of the respondent is that the said amount was given to the appellants by her father. Yet, he did not mount the witness box. The respondent has no explanation for not examining her father. When the respondent withheld the best evidence in that regard, we find no foundation for her claim. The trial court omitted this crucial aspect as well. Therefore, the direction in the impugned order to that extent is also liable to be set aside. 12 . The past maintenance for 13 months was ordered by the Family Court on being satisfied that the first appellant had neglected to pay maintenance to the respondent. The justification pointed out by the first appellant is that the respondent did not return to his company despite his repeated demands. Nevertheless, he has not instituted any proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent testified that she was subjected to cruelty by the first appellant, which comp