JUDGMENT : SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J Mat.Appeal No.307 of 2014 is filed by the husband and his father and Mat. Appeal No.927 of 2014 is filed by the wife. Both the appeals arise from the judgment dated 04.01.2014 in O.P.No.1296 of 2006 on the file of the Family Court, Ernakulam. 2. The original petition was filed by the wife claiming 41 sovereigns of gold ornaments, Rs.6,00,000/- as patrimony and other household articles, given to the husband. The Family Court had granted a decree permitting the wife to recover 41 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its present market value from the husband, and also directed to handover the teakwood almirah to the wife, but declined the prayer for money and other household articles. Aggrieved by the judgment, the husband and the wife have come up with the respective appeals. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’. 4. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 04.05.2002 and a girl child was born in their wedlock on 01.04.2003. According to the wife, on 06.04.2002, the respondents, who are the husband and the father-in-law were entrusted with Rs.5 lakhs as patrimony; and 41 sovereigns of gold ornaments on the date of marriage. She also claimed that a teakwood almirah worth Rs.25,000/-; a fridge worth Rs.16,000/- and a mixie worth Rs.3,000/- were also given to the husband. She further contended that on 09.03.2003, when she was taken to her parental home for delivery, she had entrusted her gold ornaments with the respondents for safe custody. However, the husband sold the gold ornaments and misappropriated the sale proceeds. She alleged that she was treated with cruelty, both mentally and physically, demanding more dowry. Even after the birth of the child, the respondents prevented the wife from coming back to the matrimonial home stating that thefirst respondent’s brother, who is ailing from mental illness, was at home. Thereafter, due to the intervention of the relatives, she was allowed to return to the matrimonial home in January 2006. However, this reconciliation was conditional upon her paying the husband Rs.1 lakh. Despite this, she endured cruel treatment from her husband during her stay from January 2006 to August 2006. Thereafter, due to the intervention of the relatives, she was allowed to return to the matrimonial home in January 2006. However, this reconciliation was conditional upon her paying the husband Rs.1 lakh. Despite this, she endured cruel treatment from her husband during her stay from January 2006 to August 2006. Her father-in-law made a complaint against her to the Sub Inspector, Erattupetta Police Station and further filed O.S.No.58 of 2006 before the Munsiff Court, Erattupetta and obtained injunction restraining her from entering into the matrimonial home. She was sent to her parental home in August 2006. Hence the wife filed original petition claiming return of gold ornaments, money and household articles. 5. The husband denied the receipt of Rs.5 lakhs as patrimony. According to him, the wife’s father had given Rs.3 lakhs as patrimony; and both parties decided to purchase gold ornaments with the afore amount. 41 sovereigns of gold ornaments were purchased for the wife and she wore the entire ornaments at the time of marriage. The husband alleged that the entire gold ornaments were in her custody. He also contends that while she returned to her parental home on 09.03.2003 for delivery, she had taken all the gold ornaments with her. The entrustment of the gold ornaments to the husband and his father is also denied. He had also denied the receipt of fridge and mixie. He admits that a teakwood almirah which was given to the wife is still in the matrimonial home and he is ready to return the same at any time. He also contends that the wife treated the husband with cruelty and she used to give complaints to the police alleging cruelty against his family members. He also denied the receipt of Rs.1 lakh on 09.01.2006, on account of reconciliation. He contended that during the early days of marriage, she was always quarrelsome by putting his family members and relatives in mental agony, stress, and strain. She always threatened them by saying that she will commit suicide and she used to sit idle in the room and used to sleep in the bathroom. He contends that the wife was having mental illness and due to her non-co-operation, proper treatment could not be given to her. She always threatened them by saying that she will commit suicide and she used to sit idle in the room and used to sleep in the bathroom. He contends that the wife was having mental illness and due to her non-co-operation, proper treatment could not be given to her. The husband further contended that the wife after coming back to the matrimonial home in January 2006 and after staying there for a few days, returned to her parental home. Before returning to her parental home, a mediation was conducted by Sri.Sibi Vattaparambil, who had earlier interfered in their issue. It is only after satisfying the entrustment of the entire gold ornaments including clothings, she returned to the parental home. Hence he prayed for a dismissal of the petition filed by the wife. 6. The family court after appreciation of the entire evidence, granted recovery of 41 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the husband and also ordered the return of almirah. Aggrieved by the same, the husband and wife have come up in appeal. 7. We have heard the learned Counsels appearing on both sides. 8. It is the case of the wife that, on 06.04.2002, her father had given Rs.5 lakhs to the husband as patrimony, which was taken from the bank from the sale proceeds in respect of property. At the time of marriage, she was given 41 sovereigns of gold ornaments and household articles. She also alleged that Rs.1 lakh was also given to the husband while she was taken back to her matrimonial home, three years after the delivery. It is her further contention that while she went for delivery to her parental home, she entrusted the gold ornaments with the husband and father-in-law for safe custody, but they had sold the gold ornaments and misappropriated the patrimony. In order to prove the quantity of the gold ornaments, she relied on Exts.A7(a) and A7(b) wedding photographs; and also her own deposition and the depositions of PW2 and PW3, who are the brother and the cousin of the wife. 9. It is the husband’s case that her father had given Rs.3 lakh as patrimony and the gold ornaments weighing 41 sovereigns were purchased for the afore amount. He also denied the entrustment of Rs.1 lakh, alleged to have been given to him, when the wife returned to the matrimonial home three years after the delivery. 9. It is the husband’s case that her father had given Rs.3 lakh as patrimony and the gold ornaments weighing 41 sovereigns were purchased for the afore amount. He also denied the entrustment of Rs.1 lakh, alleged to have been given to him, when the wife returned to the matrimonial home three years after the delivery. Since he found that he could not lead a marital life with her, he filed divorce petition before the Family court and the Family Court granted decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties. According to the husband her entire gold ornaments were with her which was admitted by the wife before the mediator Sri.Sibi Vattaparambil. He was examined as RW4. 10. We have considered in detail the evidence on record and the depositions of the parties. Though it is alleged by the wife in the petition that she had entrusted the gold ornaments to her husband and father-in-law while she went to her parental home for delivery, in the proof affidavit, she has stated that the husband has taken all the gold ornaments in his custody after marriage. The wife also deposed that the husband was having a travel agency and cable TV agency. She further deposed that after marriage, the husband had Tata Sumo Victa car, a Mahindra jeep, one Maruti Zen, a motorbike, a WagonR and a Verna car. The Tata Sumo Victa car worth Rs.7 lakhs was transferred to the husband's friends' name, while she filed case against him. According to her, all her gold ornaments were utilised for the needs of the husband. During cross examination, the wife had deposed that: " . She further deposed that: 11. The wife further contended that she and her father had travelled by bus to her parental home, while she went for delivery on 09.03.2003. She has also deposed in the cross-examination that she did not have any opportunity to take the gold ornaments with her while she went to her parental home for delivery. In the cross- examination she has further deposed as follows: 12. In the objection filed by the husband, he has admitted that Rs.3 lakhs was given by her father as patrimony, but according to him, the gold ornaments weighing 41 sovereigns were purchased by both parties utilising the afore amount. No other amount was given by her father. In the cross- examination she has further deposed as follows: 12. In the objection filed by the husband, he has admitted that Rs.3 lakhs was given by her father as patrimony, but according to him, the gold ornaments weighing 41 sovereigns were purchased by both parties utilising the afore amount. No other amount was given by her father. In the proof affidavit, he stated that during marriage they have not demanded any gold or money. It is admitted that 41 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given by her father at the time of marriage. But he never enquired about the weight or the value of the ornaments, which is a totally contradictory statement to what is stated in the objection filed by him. He had also stated in the proof affidavit that, whatever gold ornaments she had, it was with her and she had taken all the gold ornaments while she returned to her parental home for delivery on 09.03.2003. The husband during cross- examination had admitted the possession of Tata sumo, but denied the possession of other vehicles. During cross examination the husband has deposed that: He further desposed that: So it is admitted that she had left the matrimonial home together with her father and had travelled by bus to her parental home. 13. The husband had also relied on the evidence of RW4, Sibi John Vattaparambil who alleged to be the mediator, to prove that entire gold ornaments were taken by the wife, while she returned to the matrimonial home. It was also the case of the husband that the family court had omitted to consider the evidence of RW4. In the chief- examination, RW4 has stated that since there were problems in the matrimonial life, he asked the wife to come to his house with all her gold ornaments, child and also with her clothings. Thereafter, the husband and wife came to his house and she had agreed that the entire gold ornamentsgiven to her are in her own custody and thereafter she was sent to her parental home. During cross-examination, RW4 has stated that the wife is known to him and the husband and his father are his distant relatives. However the wife totally denied the contention that the issues between the parties were mediated by Sibi. RW4 is a relative of the husband's father. During cross-examination, RW4 has stated that the wife is known to him and the husband and his father are his distant relatives. However the wife totally denied the contention that the issues between the parties were mediated by Sibi. RW4 is a relative of the husband's father. There is nothing on record to prove such mediation other than the testimony of Sibi and the husband. Hence, his evidence cannot be relied upon. 14. PW2, the wifes' brother, had deposed that gold ornaments and money was entrusted with the husband. He also testified regarding the entrustment of Rs.1 lakh which was given to the husband, when his sister was taken to the matrimonial home after the delivery. PW3, who was her relative also deposed that she was given 41 sovereigns of gold ornaments, Rs.5 lakhs as patrimony and further amount of Rs.1 lakh, when she returned to the matrimonial home after delivery. 15. The husband relied on his own deposition aswell as the deposition of RW2, who was his relative and RW3, who was the neighbour of the husband. The evidence of RW3, that the wife had told her that she would take all the gold ornaments to her parental home, is unbelievable. RW4, who was the relative of the husband, supported the case of the husband; but it is already found that his deposition is not trustworthy. RWs 5 and 6, Dr. Sonu jerome and the Vicar of the Keerampala Kothamangalam Church were also examined to prove that the wife had taken some treatment for mental illness. 16. The main contention of the husband was that the wife had admitted the entrustment of entire gold ornaments with her in the presence of Sri. Sibi Vattaparambil, RW4, when they were called for mediation. But it cannot be believed for the reason that there was no other witness present at that time other than the husband, wife and RW4. Moreover in the proof affidavit, RW4 has stated that the wife was sent to her house with all her belongings. There is no document in writing to show thatthe matter was settled between the parties in his presence. Hence the evidence adduced by the husband does not appear to be satisfactory. 17. Moreover in the proof affidavit, RW4 has stated that the wife was sent to her house with all her belongings. There is no document in writing to show thatthe matter was settled between the parties in his presence. Hence the evidence adduced by the husband does not appear to be satisfactory. 17. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that a lady, who is 9 months pregnant and travelling in a bus with her father, would carry all her gold ornaments, clothing and household articles to the parental home . 18. A perusal of Exts.A7(a) and A7(b)photographs, reveal a substantial quantity of gold ornaments worn by the wife at the time of marriage and it is to be believed that 41 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to the wife at the time of marriage. According to the husband, 41 sovereigns of gold ornaments were purchased by utilising Rs.3 lakhs, which was given as patrimony. The value of one sovereign of gold ornament in 2002, i.e, during the time of marriage was around Rs.5,000/-. Hence it cannot be believed that they have purchased 41 sovereigns of gold ornaments by utilising Rs.3 lakhs. During 2002, 41 sovereigns of gold ornaments cost approximately Rs.2 lakhs. If they have utilised Rs.5 lakhs for purchasing the gold ornaments, it would be around 100 sovereigns. Since no satisfactory evidence has been adduced, we do not agree with the finding of the Family Court that the gold ornaments have been purchased by utilising the patrimony of Rs.5 lakhs. 19. The wife had stated that the entire gold ornaments were under the custody of her husband and father-in-law and the same were misappropriated by him for his own needs. The testimony of the husband that she had taken the entire gold ornaments while she left for her delivery is, as discussed earlier, difficult to be believed. There is no evidence to prove that she had taken all her gold ornaments while she had left the matrimonial house. As held by this Court in Pankajakshan Nair v. Shylaja & Ors. (Pankajakshan (supra).17 (1) KHC 620), when the husband and wife live together, it is only probable that the valuables of the wife will be entrusted with the husband for safe custody, and when the plea of the husband is that the wife took back the gold ornaments, it is for the husband to prove the same. (Pankajakshan (supra).17 (1) KHC 620), when the husband and wife live together, it is only probable that the valuables of the wife will be entrusted with the husband for safe custody, and when the plea of the husband is that the wife took back the gold ornaments, it is for the husband to prove the same. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in Pankajakshan(supra). 20. On an appreciation of the entire evidence, we hold that the wife was having 41 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. Her evidence that she did not wear any gold ornaments while she left the matrimonial home for delivery, does not appear to be believable. It is only probable that she might have worn few gold ornaments, atleast 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Thus, we hold that her gold ornaments weighing 36 sovereigns of gold ornaments have been misappropriated by the husband for his own needs. Deducting 5 sovereigns with the wife, she is entitled to recover 36 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the husband. 21. As regards the return of money and household articles, though she has stated that Rs.5 lakhs and further Rs.1 Lakh was entrusted to the husband, no satisfactory evidence has been adduced to prove the source of money and its entrustment. The wife claims that the source of payment of Rs.5 lakh is from the sale proceeds, which she alleges were withdrawn from the bank. However, this claim could have been easily verified and proved by producing a statement from the bank. However, the wife failed to do so. No evidence has been adduced by the wife whatsoever to prove the payment of Rs.1 lakh, which was given to his husband. Since the wife has not produced any documentary evidence to prove the entrustment of Rs.5 lakhs and further payment of Rs.1 lakh, we find that the Family Court has rightly declined the claim of entrustment of money. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. No evidence has been adduced to prove the entrustment of the other household articles. Hence, it is only probable that the husband might have purchased those household articles. We are not inclined to interfere with the said findings of the Family Court. Accordingly, Mat. Appeal No.927 of 2014 is dismissed. No evidence has been adduced to prove the entrustment of the other household articles. Hence, it is only probable that the husband might have purchased those household articles. We are not inclined to interfere with the said findings of the Family Court. Accordingly, Mat. Appeal No.927 of 2014 is dismissed. Mat Appeal No.307 of 2014 is partly allowed, by modifying the decree and judgment of the Family Court to the extent of directing the husband to return 36 (thirty six) sovereigns of gold ornaments or its present market value within one month from today, in default of which, the wife will be entitled to realize the same from the husband's assets, both movables and immovables. In all other respects the impugned judgment shall stand. No costs.