The main legal point established is that while the court vacated the finding of illicit relationship, it confirmed the decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty, and upheld the entitlement to permanent alimony and return of dowry based on the evidence presented.

A.M. Babu, J.

1. The Family Court, Kottayam allowed three original petitions by a common judgment. Those petitions were (i) O.P 290/2008 for divorce, (ii) O.P 291/2008 for return of dowry and (iii) O.P 1254/2008 for permanent alimony. Mat.Appeal Nos.910, 911 and 912 of 2009 are preferred against the decrees in O.P Nos.290, 1254 and 291 of 2008 respectively.

2. Petitioner is one and the same person in all the three petitions. She at the time of filing of the petitions was the wife of the first respondent in O.P.290/2008. He is the first respondent in O.P 291/2008 and the sole respondent in O.P 1254/2008. His father and mother are respectively respondents 2 and 3 in O.P 291/2008. The second respondent in O.P 290/2008 is alleged to be the paramour of the first respondent therein.

3. The contentions of the petitioner relevant for deciding her three petitions may be summarized as follows : Her husband has illicit relationship with his paramour. He mentally and physically tortured the petitioner. She was completely deserted and neglected by him. She is therefore entitled to a decree of divorce. Her Rs.50,000/- and 120 grams of gold ornaments were appropriated by him and his parents. She is entitled to get back her money, ornaments and other household articles such as steel almirah, mixer et cetera. She is poor. He is rich. She is entitled to five lakhs rupees as permanent alimony.

4. The contentions of the husband and his parents go as under : He never had any illicit relationship with the second respondent in O.P 290/2008. The former did not desert or neglect his wife. Nor did he treat her with physical or mental cruelty. Before his marriage with her, she had an illicit relationship with one Soloman. Rs.50,000/- was received by him and his parents from her side. But the money was spent to buy 'tali', other ornaments, wedding dress et cetera. The petitioner had only 13½ sovereigns of gold ornaments. She had taken those ornaments, except a neklace and two bangles, with her when she left for her house.

5. The sole respondent (husband) in O.P 1254/2008 did not file any objection in that case.

6. The second respondent in O.P 290/2008 denied her to have any illicit relationship with the first respondent.

7. Evidence was recorded in O.P 290/2009. PW1 and RW1 were examined. Exts A1 to A9 and B1 were marked.

8. The learned Judge of the Family Court allowed all the original petitions with a costs of Rs.3,000/-. The relief of divorce was decreed on the grounds of cruelty and illicit relationship. One lakh rupees was decreed as permanent alimony. The amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of decree. The petitioner was granted a decree for Rs.50,000/- with 9% interest from the date of suit. The respondents in O.P 291/2008 were directed to return 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments or pay Rs.1,50,000/- as the value thereof with interest thereon at the rate of 9% from the date of decree. They were also directed to return the household articles or pay Rs.5,000/- as the value of those articles.

9. Heard.

10. We shall first consider O.P 290/2008. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 15.1.2007. They are Hindus. Desertion is a ground for divorce under Sec.13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The length of desertion shall be a continuous minimum period of two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. Two years' period is not satisfied even counted from the date of the marriage. Therefore the petitioner was not entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. The Family Court did not grant divorce under Sec.13(1)(ib).

11. The petitioner contends that the second respondent is the paramour of the first respondent. The Family Court accepted the said contention. We are afraid, evidence is quite insufficient to accept the contention of the petitioner. What the petitioner should prove is not just a love affair of her husband. The Family Court did not appreciate