The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the concept of cruelty under Section 10(1) of the Indian Divorce Act, and the assessment of evidence in cases of matrimonial disputes.

Shaffique, J.

MA No.480/2010 is filed against the judgment dated 15/3/2010 in OP No.874/2009 by which the Family Court, Kottayam dismissed a petition for divorce filed under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. The petitioner is the appellant herein. The parties are described as shown in OP No.874/2009.

2. The short facts arising in the original petition are as under:-

Petitioner married the respondent on 8/1/2009 as per Christian rites. After a few days of marriage, their relationship strained. Petitioner alleges that the respondent quarreled with him on simple matters and she was not willing to accept him as her husband. She had even behaved indifferently and set fire to the pillows and bed sheet on the second day of marriage. Petitioner further alleges that the respondent quarreled with the petitioner at his sister's house and they had to return without participating in the baptism ceremony of his sister's daughter. When questioned, she attempted to jump from the car and commit suicide. She always threatened him that she will file complaint against him and commit suicide. According to the petitioner, she was not interested in performing her marital obligations. Though he complained to her parents about her behaviour, they did not interfere in the matter. On 14/4/2009, the respondent quarreled with the petitioner demanding that she requires abortion of the pregnancy if the petitioner does not agree for the same. A complaint was filed by the petitioner's father on 27/4/2009. The respondent also filed criminal complaint alleging offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent aborted the pregnancy which caused mental pain to the petitioner. Hence, according to him, she had treated him with cruelty and he is entitled for a divorce. It is contended that they were living separately since 14/4/2009.

3. Objection was filed by the respondent inter alia denying the allegations raised and stating that all the averments are false. According to the respondent, she was performing her marital obligations as a wife and the pregnancy was not aborted deliberately. According to her, she is willing to live with the petitioner and there is no reason for divorce.

4. The respondent had also filed OP No.475/2009 for return of money and gold ornaments which was tried along with the above original petition. Common evidence was taken. Petitioner relied upon the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and respondent relied upon the evidence of RWs 1 to 3. Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the petitioner and Exts.B1 to B3 on the side of respondent. As far as the allegation of cruelty is concerned, after considering the evidence on record, the Family Court came to a finding that the petitioner has not succeeded to prove that the wife behaved cruelly towards him and the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 were not sufficient to prove the said allegation. It is also found that there was no evidence to come to a finding that the wife wilfully aborted her pregnancy whereas it is found that the evidence of the respondent was enough to prove that the petitioner had behaved cruelly towards the wife and had made false allegations against her. Accordingly, the claim for divorce was rejected.

5. MA No. 474/2010 has been filed against OP No.475/2009. The OP was filed for return of money and gold ornaments. The allegation raised in the original petition is that an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and 55 sovereigns were entrusted with respondents 1 to 3 therein as share of the petitioner. Out of the aforesaid quantity of gold ornaments, 7 sovereigns are with the petitioner and remaining 48 sovereigns were appropriated by the respondents. The respondent filed objection denying the aforesaid facts. It is contended that the petitioner's parents had no capacity to give such amount and gold ornaments. According to them, the ornaments which she had worn at the time of marriage were taken on rent from a beauty parlour and it is imitation gold. The marriage between them was a love mar