Pune family court denies repayment of ₹60,000 transferred for wedding expenses

The family court in Pune denied Aditi Kulkarni’s claim for repayment of ₹60,000 from Nikhil Deshmukh, finding that she had not proved he agreed to return the money. It ordered no payment by either party.

The dispute turned on what the couple understood when Aditi transferred the money during their marriage: she said it was a loan, while Nikhil said it was a contribution to wedding expenses.

The court said the transfer and a subsequent catering payment showed the movement and use of money, but did not establish a promise to repay it. Aditi, as the person seeking repayment, had to prove that obligation before the court could order any amount returned.

A receipt from Nikhil’s records described a ₹60,000 wedding catering payment shortly after the transfer. It supported his account of how the money was used, but did not show who was ultimately responsible for the bill or whether Aditi had agreed to contribute rather than lend.

Aditi relied on an alleged chat as evidence of a repayment promise, but the chat itself was not produced. Without it, the court could not assess the words, timing or context, and treated neither party’s interpretation of the message as established.

The record did not establish that Nikhil had repaid any part of the money. But the absence of repayment could not itself prove a debt, the court explained.

Aditi said she had given Nikhil the money as a loan and that he promised to return it after his savings deposit matured. Her submissions referred to the transfer record and a later chat that she said clarified his readiness to pay.

Nikhil disputed that the transfer was a loan. He said a reference to settling up meant checking remaining wedding bills, not promising repayment, and pointed to the catering receipt as consistent with his account.

He acknowledged that the receipt did not prove what the couple had agreed and that he had not seen the alleged chat. He asked the court to deny the claim or decline to order full repayment without proof of the agreement.

The couple married in Pune. According to Aditi’s account, Nikhil asked her shortly after the wedding to cover a bill, and she transferred ₹60,000; the transfer note described the payment as “wedding bills.”

The court confined its decision to the repayment claim. It did not find that Aditi had definitively agreed to make a wedding contribution: the parties’ original understanding remained unresolved, but the available record did not prove a repayment agreement or a remaining debt.