JUDGMENT

1. The Appeal, under Sec. 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.'), is filed by the Appellant/Defendant challenging the decree and Judgment dtd. 28/7/2011 in O.S.No.398 of 2011 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet (for short, 'the trial court').

2. Respondent is the Plaintiff who filed the suit in O.S.No.398 of 2011 seeking recovery of Rs.9, 37, 000.00 towards the return of dowry amount and also the gold ornaments given to the Defendant at the time of marriage of the Plaintiff and Defendant.

3. Referring to the parties hereinafter as arrayed in the suit is expedient to mitigate potential confusion and better comprehend the case.

4. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows:

(a) The Defendant's marriage was solemnized with Plaintiff on 6/6/2009 at his native place, Appapuram, as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, given the demand of the Defendant and his parents, the Plaintiff's parents and her brother, Ramakrishna, gave Rs.6, 00, 000.00 towards dowry that was given four days before the marriage in the presence of elders namely Gottipati Seshu, Gottipati Ramanjaneyulu, Madineni Srinivasa Rao, Gottipati Sriharidasu Narayana, Gadipudi Kistaiah, Yamparala Raghava Rao and others at the Defendant's house at Appapuram. On the date of marriage, one chain, one ring, and one bracelet, together with eight sovereigns of gold ornaments, were presented to the Plaintiff. Indeed, out of the salaries of Plaintiff and her brother, who worked at Bangalore, and the income derived from the lands of Plaintiff's parents, the cash and gold were given by her parents to Plaintiff for her benefit and were handed over to Defendant. Indeed, the Plaintiff, her brother and their parents used to have bank accounts, and they kept the amounts in the bank; they withdrew on different occasions from the respective banks to put the amounts together and handed over the same towards dowry. As the Defendant used to work in Uganda, given his employment, the said huge amount of dowry was given. Defendant's bounden duty is to return the said amount of dowry and gold articles to Plaintiff within three months after the marriage as per law. But he has failed to return the same to date, despite the demands made by the Plaintiff, her brother, and her parents. Plaintiff, her parents and elders demanded that Defendant return the dowry and gold articles, but Defendant used to postpone.

(b) The couple lived together happily for one month after the marriage. Later, Defendant left Appapuram for Uganda for employment; four months after, Plaintiff also left her place for Uganda and joined Defendant. When the Plaintiff reached Uganda, she came to know the Defendant's mentality since he used to consume alcohol frequently by quarrelling and beating her, for which she was subjected to cruelty. The Defendant used to take Gutka, and he is also a heavy smoker. The Defendant's habit made it difficult to maintain the family. The Plaintiff enjoyed nothing in Uganda. Instead, she had no peace and pleasure being confined to four corners of a room and had no occasion to exchange pleasantries even with neighbours since she was a stranger to them and to that language and culture. Defendant used to reach the house leisurely and frequently in a drunken state, and he used to take liquor at the house itself during the nights, resulting in beating and abusing Plaintiff and with the result, there was a gulf between them. The Defendant had to resign his job to the Plaintiff's knowledge due to the misdeeds. They left Uganda and reached Appapuram in June 2010. As the Defendant lost his job in Uganda, the couple had to leave the place hoping to have a job and were searching for one in Hyderabad. The Plaintiff used to live in a hostel, and the Defendant resided at his sister's house. The Plaintiff got employment, but the Defendant