evidence to support purchase of gold,

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AnA8RNRWqS7Zre1aMANvk_SVlW0UgQ?e=bIVCsJ

Stridhan is the absolute property of a woman, and while the husband has no control over it, he can use it in times of distress. Nevertheless, he has a moral obligation to return it or its value to his wife.

Maya Gopinathan v Anoop S.B., Diary No.- 22430-2022

Supreme Court of India25. Secondly, the High Court held the appellants failure to lead
documentary evidence to support purchase of 89 sovereigns of gold,
which she allegedly brought with her to the matrimonial home, as fatal.
To our mind, the approach is entirely indefensible. The version of the
respondents with regard to retention of custody of jewellery by the
appellant has been noticed in paragraph 10 (supra). Although we accept
as probable that the jewellery had not been weighed, there is no escape
from the conclusion that the respondents did admit the appellant having
brought with her sufficient jewellery constituting stridhan. The dispute
was raised firstly with regard to quantum and secondly, with regard to
custody. How far is the version of the first respondent believable that
on the night of the wedding, the appellant put her jewellery in an
almirah and locked the same, with the keys being kept below the pillow?
To find an answer, we pose a question to ourselves: for a person of
ordinary prudence, is it reasonable to expect that a woman, who is
freshly married and is intending to live in the same house and under
the same roof with her husband, to keep her personal belongings like
jewellery, etc. under her own lock and key, thus, showing a spirit of
distrust to the husband right after the moment she gets married? The
answer cannot but be in the negative. On the contrary, the circumstance
that the husband had volunteered to take custody of the jewellery for
safekeeping with his mother appears to be more plausible than the rival
16
version considering the probabilities that are associated with similar
such situations. The very concept of marriage rests on the inevitable
mutual trust of the spouses, which conjugality necessarily involves. To
assume that the appellant from day one did not trust the first
respondent is rather improbable. The High Court, thus, failed to draw
the right inference from facts which appear to have been fairly
established. That apart, we have neither been shown nor do we know
of any binding precedent that for a claim of return of stridhan articles
or money equivalent thereof to succeed, the wife has to prove the mode
and manner of such acquisition. It was not a criminal trial where the
chain of circumstances had to be complete and conclusively proved,
without any missing link. Undisputedly, the appellant had brought to the
matrimonial home sufficient quantum of jewellery, which she wore
during the marriage and as is evidenced from photographs being Ext.
A3 series; and, having regard thereto, the High Court committed serious
error in first doubting and then disbelieving the appellants version on
the specious ground that documents proving acquisition thereof by
P.W.2 had not been produced.