Calling it “common knowledge” that a bride’s gold is usually entrusted to the husband after marriage, the Kerala High Court refused to interfere with the order directing return of 40 sovereigns, cash and maintenance. The ruling raises deeper questions on how presumptions and probabilities can decisively shape matrimonial liability.
HC Order Coolie Husband To Return Gold And Pay Maintenance: In a judgment dated 16 February 2026, the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam, comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar, decided a matrimonial dispute arising from orders of the Family Court, Thrissur.
The case involved claims by the wife for return of 40 sovereigns of gold, Rs.50,000, household articles and both past and future maintenance. The Family Court had allowed her petition and dismissed the husband’s claim that he had given gold and money to her. The husband challenged this order before the High Court.
While examining the evidence, the High Court noted that the husband did not seriously deny that the wife wore substantial gold ornaments at the time of marriage. The Court observed:
“It is evident that the appellant does not seriously dispute the quantity of gold ornaments worn by the respondent at the time of marriage.”
The judges also recorded that during cross-examination, the husband admitted he was working as a coolie earning Rs.150 to Rs.250 per day, while the wife’s father was employed abroad. Based on the evidence and photographs produced, the Court held there was no reason to disbelieve the wife’s claim of possessing at least 40 sovereigns of gold.
Importantly, the Court stated:
“We find no reason to disbelieve the respondent’s version that she had at least 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments.”
It further added that ordinarily a bride may not retain all ornaments personally and that entrustment to the husband or close relatives is probable.
However, the Court gave partial relief by removing liability from the husband’s mother. The judges held, “we find no justification to impose liability upon the second respondent,” as there was no convincing evidence of her direct involvement.
The husband’s claim that he had given 16 sovereigns of gold and Rs.5,00,000 to the wife was rejected. The Court found that he failed to establish sufficient financial means before marriage to support such a claim.
Regarding maintenance, the Court upheld the award of Rs.4,000 per month, observing:
“We find no reason to interfere with the said award, which appears to be fair and reasonable.”
In the final result, the High Court modified the decree only to the extent of exonerating the mother. All other directions, including the return of gold and money and the payment of maintenance, were upheld.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Legal Proceedings Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | How Applied in This Case |
| Family Courts Act, 1984 | Governs jurisdiction and procedure of Family Courts in matrimonial and maintenance matters | The original petitions and maintenance case were decided by the Family Court, Thrissur under this framework |
| Maintenance Proceedings (M.C.) | To provide financial support to a spouse unable to maintain herself | Wife claimed past and future maintenance; Court awarded Rs.4,000 per month and High Court upheld it |
| Original Petition (O.P.) for Return of Gold & Money | Civil remedy to recover entrusted property such as gold, money and household articles | Wife sought recovery of 40 sovereigns, Rs.50,000 and articles; Court accepted her version |
| Matrimonial Appeal (Mat.Appeal) | Statutory appeal against Family Court’s matrimonial orders | Husband challenged return of gold and maintenance order before High Court |
| Revision Petition (R.P.(FC)) | Limited supervisory jurisdiction to examine legality or correctness of Family Court’s order | Husband sought interference in maintenance findings; High Court dismissed revision |
| Principles of Entrustment & Misappropriation (Civil Law) | Liability arises when property entrusted for safe custody is not returned | Court held entrustment of gold to husband was probable but found no proof against mother |
Case Details
- Case Title: Nishad and Anr. v. Mumthaz Beegum and connected cases
- Case No.: Mat.Appeal Nos.1007/2015, 1013/2015 & R.P.(FC) No.221/2016
- Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
- Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:13291
- Date of Judgment: 16 February 2026
- Bench: Justice Sathish Ninan & Justice P. Krishna Kumar
- Counsels
- For Appellant: Sri. K.M. Jamaludheen, Sri. Joby Varghese, Smt. Latha Prabhakaran
- For Respondent: Shri. K.I. Sageer
Key Takeaways
- Alleged entrustment of 40 sovereigns was accepted mainly on oral testimony, while the husband’s denial and weak financial background were not given equal importance. This reflects how evidentiary standards can operate harshly against men.
- The Court relied on “common knowledge” that a bride entrusts gold to her husband or in-laws. Such presumptions can unfairly shift liability onto the husband without strict proof of misappropriation.
- The husband’s counterclaim failed for want of proof of financial capacity, yet the wife’s gold claim succeeded without strong documentary backing. The burden of proof appears heavier on the man.
- Maintenance of Rs.4,000 per month was upheld despite the husband being a daily wage worker, showing how courts often prioritize claimed need over actual earning stability.
- Though the mother was rightly relieved due to lack of evidence, the husband remained fully liable largely on probability, highlighting how matrimonial litigation can financially trap men years after marriage.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.