Family Court, Pune denies jewellery return, payment and search over disputed envelope

The Family Court, Pune denied Anagha Deshpande’s requests for the return of her wedding jewellery, payment for its value and a search of the former marital home. It found that the evidence did not establish the facts needed for any of those orders.

Anagha said Rohan Deshpande had not returned the jewellery after she moved out. Rohan said he believed it was in an envelope he handed her, but the court found that the evidence left its contents unresolved.

The central evidence was a dated WhatsApp exchange in which Rohan said he had given Anagha an envelope with her papers, and she thanked him for the envelope. The exchange supported a handover and acknowledgment, but did not identify everything inside.

The reference to papers supported Anagha’s argument that jewellery was not expressly mentioned. But the judge said that silence did not prove jewellery was absent; equally, the handover did not prove it was included. Repeated copies of the same exchange were not independent corroboration.

Because Anagha sought the relief, she had to establish that the jewellery was not returned. The court said the uncertainty meant she had not met that burden, while making no finding that Rohan had returned or retained it.

The court also had no reliable basis for a payment award. Anagha referred to a receipt and current prices, but the receipt was not presented and there was no specific valuation in the hearing record. Nor did the evidence establish that the jewellery was at the former home, so the requested search was unsupported.

Anagha argued that Rohan’s message mentioned papers, not jewellery, and that he would have mentioned the jewellery if he had returned it. She said the jewellery was expensive, referred to a pre-marriage purchase receipt and requested a search of the former home.

Rohan opposed the requests and acknowledged that the messages did not prove the jewellery was in the envelope. He said he believed it was there, but offered no verified firsthand account of its contents. He also argued that the record did not show the jewellery was at the former home.

The dispute arose after Anagha moved out of the couple’s shared Pune home. She said she had left her wedding jewellery in an envelope and understood her later thanks to Rohan to concern papers he returned.

The decision leaves both the jewellery’s present location and whether it was returned unresolved. The court also did not decide ownership based on the alleged receipt, because it was not presented for assessment.