ABSTRACT
In matrimonial cases to recover gold, Family Courts mistakenly specify an alternate value that is recoverable if they cannot return the gold itself. However, when husbands preferred appeals, these cases would remain in litigation for years, and the value of gold would skyrocket. This would allow the husband to pay the lesser amount specified by the Family Court as alternate value and keep possession of the more valuable gold ornaments. Through a doctrinal analysis of key judgments, this paper traces the developing judicial stance on this issue. These judgments have remedied the issue for future cases by imposing a duty on Family Courts to direct market value as on the date of realisation as alternative relief. However, regarding existing cases, these judgments have left the question open whether the wife has to prefer a cross-objection to claim the present market value of the gold. This paper argues that cross-objections are not required to claim the present market value of gold recoverable. This paper also argues that while the courts have striven to resolve the issue by directing market value as on the date of realisation, this is not an effective representation of the unjust enrichment caused. The courts misunderstood the idea of unjust enrichment of rights and left the husbands in a position where they still enrich themselves by choosing to pay alternative value and keeping possession of the gold. Our legal framework does not remedy unjust enrichment of rights, and if the husband retains possession of the gold by paying the alternate value, they enrich themselves when the value of gold increases, leaving the issue without remedy.
R, Deebu, On The Rights of Wives Against Unjust Enrichment In Return Of Gold Cases (April 20, 2026), Avalon Journal of Law, volume 1, issue 2, pp 125-144 (April 2026).
Leave a Reply