Mary Joseph, J.

These three Mat. Appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 20.12.2008 of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor (hereinafter referred to as 'the court below') in OP (HMA) No. 467/2008, O.P.(G&W) No. 468/2008 and O.P. No. 960/2007 respectively.

2. The appellant in Mat.Appeal.No.254/2009 and 255/2009 is the petitioner and the respondent is the respondent respectively in O.P. (HMA) No.467 of 2008 and OP(G&W) No.468/2008. The appellants in Mat.Appeal.No.269 of 2009 are the respondents and the respondent is the petitioner in O.P.No.960 of 2007.

3. The parties to these appeals are referred to hereinafter as 'the petitioner' and 'the respondent' in accordance with their original status in the respective original petitions.

4. O.P.(HMA) No.467/2008 was filed seeking for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. O.P.(G&W) No.468/2008 was filed seeking custody of the minor child. O.P.No.960/2007 was filed seeking return of gold ornaments.

5. All the three cases were tried jointly by the court below and vide common judgment dated 20.12.2008, O.P.(HMA) No. 467/2008 was dismissed; O.P.No.960/2007 was decreed in part and the petitioner/wife was held entitled to realise 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its present approximate value of Rs.4,50,000/- with interest from respondents 1 and 2; O.P.No.468/2008 was disposed of with a direction to the respondent therein to continue to have custody of the minor child until further orders and the petitioner is allowed to visit the child once in a month on every second Saturday at the respondent/wife's residence. Costs was also allowed.

6. The aggrieved petitioner respectively in O.P.(HMA) No. 467/2008 and O.P.(G&W) No. 468/2008 and the respondents in O.P.No.960/2007 have filed these Mat.Appeals contending that the common judgment passed by the court below in the aforesaid cases is against the law, the facts and the evidence in the case.

7. Sri. P.S. Biju advanced arguments to convince that the court below has erred in appreciating the evidence and passing the impugned judgment and thereby, miscarriage of justice is meted out to the appellant.

8. In Mat.Appeal.No.254/2009, the contentions raised with reference to O.P.(HMA) No. 467/2008 are as follows:-

1. The appreciation of evidence by the court below was in the wrong perspective.

2. The court below failed to note from the evidence adduced by the petitioner that marital relationship has been irretrievably broken and there is no chance for reunion.

3. The evidence satisfactorily establishes that the parties were living separately for the last five years and the grounds raised are desertion and cruelty. In the said circumstances, the court below ought to have granted a decree in favour of the petitioner.

4. By declining to grant a decree of divorce, the court below has denied a legitimate right of the parties to have a separate family life.

9. In the backdrop of the contentions raised, the evidence on record is re-appreciated. As we have already observed, evidence was let in, in common in all the three cases in a joint trial. The husband was the petitioner in all cases and he has sworn to the relevant facts in the proof affidavit in tune with his pleadings. The allegations against the wife as sworn to in the proof affidavit are to the following effect:-

The wife behaved cruelly towards him and his mother and refused to look after the latter. She left the matrimonial home and started living a wayward life. In cross-examination, it has come out that he was living separately from the wife from 2003 onwards. According to him, the allegation of the wife that the house, where they were staying together, was sold in order to avoid the company of the wife was not true. Admittedly, mediation talks were there at the instance of one Mr.Bhaskaran on 15.12.2003 to unite them, but that turned futile. Admittedly, the wife is willing to live with him, but he is not. RW1, the wife has filed proof affidavit wherein she has sw