CRP/2864/2026 of D.Rajkamal Vs M.Elakkiya on 13 August 2026

ORDER

The husband in Matrimonial Proceedings, aggrieved by the order of Family Court in I.A No. 4 of 2021, directing return of articles to the respondent- wife, is the Revision Petitioner.

2. I have heard Mr. Ajay Francis Inigo Loyola, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mrs. Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel, for Mrs. K. Sridevi, learned counsel for the Respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would state that the Family Court has directed return of jewellery and other household articles without appreciating the legal position. He would further state that the Family Court has committed a grave error in relying on photocopies of documents, when no proof was adduced with regard to the whereabouts of the originals. He would also state that the Family Court has erroneously given weightage to a slip admission made by the petitioner to allow the application.

4. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that inviting my attention to the entire deposition of the petitioner during the trial stage, where apart from one stray admission regarding jewellery at multiple other places, the petitioner has categorically and specifically denied suggestions and questions put to him with regard to the jewellery that was brought in by the respondent at the time of marriage. The learned counsel referring to Section 58 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Act 2023 (Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), would contend that the Family Court ought not to have even admitted the photocopies of the bills for purchase of jewellery. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on the decision of the Division

Bench of this Court in R. Murugesan and another vs. State, represented by the Inspector of Police in Crl. A. No 393 and 396 of 2012 and the judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Baga Bharti vs. Sarkar, reported in AIR 1950 Raj10.

5. Relying on the ratio laid down in these two cases, Mr. Ajay Francis contends that when there are contradictions in the evidence, with the petitioner admitting to his wife bringing jewellery in one place and denying the very same fact at various other places, then applying Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Act 2023 (Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) the Court ought to have put the former statement to the witness and drawn his attention to the contradiction. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said procedure has not been adopted in the present case and therefore, even on this legal ground of non-compliance of Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Act 2023 (Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), he would state that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. The Rajasthan High Court also laid down similar ratio in Baga Bharti’s case (Supra), where reference was made to Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Act 2023 (Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) and held that the proper course of action to be followed is to draw the attention of the witness to those parts of the previous statement which are inconsistent to later statements in the deposition. The learned counsel therefore prays for the Revision being allowed.

7. Per contra, Mrs. Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondent-wife, would firstly contend that strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in matrimonial proceedings and secondly, the photostat copies of the bills under which the jewellery items were purchased were not only marked through the petitioner's husband himself, but also without any protest or objection whatsoever. It is therefore her submission that there is absolutely no error committed by the Family Court in allowing the application for return of jewellery and other household items. Mrs. Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel, would also bring to my notice the circumstances under which the Respondent left the matrimonial home and therefore, there could have been no occasion for her to take the household articles belonging to her or her valuable jewellery as well at that time.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.

9. At the outset, I do not see how Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Act 2023 (Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) would have to be invoked in the present case for two reasons. Firstly, Section 14 of the Family

Courts Act, 1984, gives ample powers to the “Family Court to receive any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.” In view of the said provision, I do not see how the petitioner can contend that the Family Court is bound by strict rules of evidence. Secondly, it is not as if the return of jewellery is sought from thin air.

10. The specific case of the respondent wife is that before her marriage, these jewellery items had been purchased from two different jewellers. Photostat copies of the bills/invoices under which various jewellery items had been purchased have been exhibited through the petitioner himself. The petitioner did not deny these documents at the time of the documents being received in evidence. Therefore, even on this ground, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that said documents cannot be relied on in the case. In fact the bills that have been produced, matched exactly with the description of the jewellery that is sought to be returned in IA No. 4 of 2021.

11. Insofar as the decisions that have been relied on, referring to Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Act 2023 (Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), both these decisions were rendered in criminal cases and therefore the courts held that when there is contradiction in the statement of witness, it has to be dealt with utmost caution. I therefore do not see how these decisions will be of any avail to the petitioner in the present case.

12. For the foregoing reasons, I do not see any infirmity in the findings arrived at by the Family Court. However, considering the quantity of jewellery and the nature of household articles that are sought to be returned to the respondent-wife, I enquired with the learned Senior Counsel as to whether the respondent is willing to waive some portion of her claim. On instructions, the learned Senior Counsel stated that if the petitioner is not able to return the jewellery, then at least a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs could be paid in full and final settlement of return of jewellery and household articles. She also fairly stated that the respondent is not seriously pursuing the order for return of the household articles, but jewellery being a valuable component, the wife is insisting on that alone. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, stated that petitioner is willing to pay a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs, provided some reasonable time is granted to the petitioner.

13. In the light of the above, finding no merit in the revision, while confirming the order in IA No. 4 of 2021, the following order is also passed:

(i) In the event of petitioner paying a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs in four instalments of Rs.5 lakhs each, at an interval of two months apart, the first instalment of Rs. 5 lakhs being payable on or before 15.09.2026, the second instalment of Rs. 5 lakhs being payable on or before 15.11.2026, the third instalment of Rs. 5 lakhs being payable on or before 15.01.2027 and last instalment of Rs. 5 lakhs being payable on or before 15.03.2027, then the respondent shall receive the same in full and final settlement of all claims for return of jewellery and household articles, as ordered in I.A.No.4 of 2021.

(ii) However, if the petitioner commits default in payment of even one of the instalments, then it shall be open to the respondent to execute the order in IA No. 4 of 2021 and this settlement officer shall stand withdrawn.

14. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the above concession shown to the petitioner. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 13.08.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA To The V Additional Family Court, Chennai.

P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA CRP No.2864 of 2026 13.08.2026