Babu Mathew P. Joseph, J.

The respondent in O.P. No. 83 of 2007 on the files of the Family Court, Thodupuzha is the appellant in Mat. Appeal No. 507 of 2010. The petitioner in O.P. No. 83 of 2007 is the appellant in Mat. Appeal No. 580 of 2010. O.P. No. 83 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner/husband for declaring his title and possession over the petition A schedule property and buildings thereon and restraining the respondent/wife from creating any documents touching the said properties, for declaring the title of the petitioner over the petition B schedule movable articles and restraining the respondent from removing them and for other reliefs. The Court below declared that the petitioner has title and ownership over the petition A schedule property and the buildings thereon and the respondent was restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from creating any documents relating to the said properties. The other reliefs claimed by the petitioner in that original petition were rejected by the Court below. Aggrieved by the declaration of title and ownership over the petition A schedule property and the buildings thereon and the injunction granted in favour of the petitioner in the original petition, the respondent/appellant/wife has preferred Mat. Appeal No. 507 of 2010. Aggrieved by the rejection of the declaration of title and injunction prayed for in respect of petition B schedule movables, the petitioner/appellant/husband has preferred Mat.Appeal No. 580 of 2010.

2. Heard the learned counsel on both the sides. Since both these appeals arise out of the same judgment and also considering the parties involved in these cases, we have heard both these appeals together and they are being disposed of by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the husband is referred to as the appellant and the wife is referred to as the respondent in this judgment.

3. The appellant's case is briefly stated as follows : The appellant and the respondent are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 9.3.1996 at Vengalloor in the residential house of the respondent's father. The appellant hails from Vakayar in Pathanamthitta district. He has worked in Saudi Arabia for nearly 10 years. The landed property described in petition A schedule is 20.750 cents in Sy. No. 1235/1/5 of Kumaramangalam Village within Thodupuzha Municipal limits. There is a two storeyed building in that property bearing Door No. 2B/XXV. There is a kitchen annexed to that building bearing Door No. 2A/XXV. The petition schedule properties and the buildings thereon belong to the appellant. But, the sale deeds in respect of the property and the municipal records in respect of the buildings thereon stand in the name of the respondent.

4. The appellant was working in Saudi Arabia from January, 1997 onwards. He was earning a good income. He used to send amounts from Saudi Arabia to the respondent. He wanted to marry a girl from a poor family. So, had given an advertisement in a paper and through the intervention of a marriage bureau at Muvattupuzha, the respondent's proposal was processed which led to their marriage. At the time of marriage and even now, the respondent has been working as a Class IV employee under Thodupuzha Municipality. She was drawing only a meagre amount of around Rs.2,500/- as salary at the time of marriage.

5. The respondent is the eldest among the five children born to her parents Sulaiman and Iysha. Her father abandoned his wife and children when the children were in their tender years. As they had only 10 cents of property and a hut as assets, it was Iysha, the mother, who had brought up the children by her hard work and toil. The respondent could secure the job of a part-time sweeper in Thodupuzha Municipality at her coming off age and it was with her income that the younger children could grow up. Two younger sisters of the respondent were already married when the appellant married the respondent.

6. During the early years of marriage,