Big decision of Kerala High Court: Dowry jewelry given to husband, wife will have to give proof
In a major ruling, the Kerala High Court said that a wife can get back gold ornaments and articles handed over to her husband during marriage only if she proves that she had handed over the ornaments to the husband.
The Kerala High Court has given a big decision regarding jewelry and other material in the case of divorce. The High Court in one of its orders held that gold ornaments kept in a locker in the name of the wife cannot be handed over to the husband or the husband's family and therefore cannot be recovered during the divorce proceedings. The court, while giving the verdict, said that the wife can ask back the gold ornaments and articles handed over to her husband during the marriage only if she proves that she had handed over the ornaments to the husband.
The Kerala High Court has made this remark while dismissing a petition in a case challenging the decision of the Family Court. A bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and PG Ajith Kumar said during the hearing in the case that keeping gold ornaments of the wife in a locker made in the name of the husband cannot be tantamount to handing it over to him.
The Kerala High Court dismissed the petition while hearing the woman's appeal against the decision of the Family Court. Also said that the recovery of money and gold ornaments cannot be claimed without evidence.
In the petition, the counsel for the appellant argued that since the money and jewellery were handed over in connection with the marriage, the same would amount to dowry. Wakin argued that there is little evidence for this because such transactions are not publicly available because they are prohibited by law.
The Court said that once it is determined that the gold ornaments were handed over by the wife to the husband or his family. Evidence will have to be produced as to what was done with the jewellery. However, in the present case, the gold ornaments were kept in a locker in the name of the wife. The wife's argument was that later it was usurped by the husband. The court refused to accept this argument due to a lack of evidence.