IMPORTANT POINT
The respondent/wife had been harassing the petitioner/husband and his parents and she had even gone to the extent of filing false complaints against them. Though such an aspect had not been pleaded since the Original petition was filed even before a case being charged against them, subsequent events which are part of record clearly proves her attitude against the petitioner and his parents. The entire case was set up to harass them and therefore, the contention of the petitioner/husband that the wife had been ill-treating him and his parents has to be believed.

JUDGMENT :

A. M. Shaffique, J.

Both these appeals are filed with reference to the matrimonial issues between the appellant and respondent and hence heard and decided together.

2. Mat.Appeal No.236/13 has been filed by the husband challenging an order passed by the Family Court in OP No.604/2007 by which petitioner/wife was permitted to recover 51 sovereigns of gold or its value from the respondent/husband.

3. Mat.Appeal No.277/13 has been filed by the husband/petitioner challenging order of dismissal passed by the Family Court in OP No.327/2005, a petition filed seeking divorce.

4. First we shall consider the petition for divorce. The parties are shown as described in the OP No.327/2005 unless otherwise stated. The petitioner and the respondent got married on 28/8/2001 as per Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. A male child was born in the wedlock on 6/1/2003. The allegation is that the behaviour and conduct of the respondent was very bad from the very inception of the marriage and he was being harassed both physically and mentally. Same attitude was shown by her towards her in-laws. She left the matrimonial home on several occasions without his consent. This is her second marriage and first marriage also ended in a divorce. Later, she compelled him to shift his residence to a rented building stating that the facilities in the matrimonial home were not sufficient for her. After the child was born, on the 5th month, she went away along with the child. Her whereabouts were not known. In July, 2003, he came to know that she was staying with her maternal uncle. Though he tried his level best to bring her back, she was not willing and presently, she is residing with her sister. According to him, the marriage is irretrievably broken and there is no chance for a reunion and hence he sought for divorce on the ground of cruelty u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

5. Respondent/Wife having admitted the marriage and birth of the child, denied the fact that she had committed any acts of cruelty. According to her, she did not have any freedom in the matrimonial home. She was not permitted to meet the family members or to call them over phone. She was treated as a maid servant and she was forced to do all household works and there was demand for more dowry as well.

6. In OP No.604/2007 wife claimed that she was adorned with 51 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage and 48 sovereigns belonging to her was entrusted to the respondent/husband for safe keeping which he had taken away. The respondent/husband in his objection denied the said fact. According to him, he was not entrusted with any gold ornaments and in July, 2003, when she left the house, she had written a letter to him stating that the entire gold ornaments are available with her.

7. Common evidence was taken in the case. The husband was examined as PW1 and the wife as RW1. Exts.A1 to A3 are the documents relied upon by the husband. The Family Court found that the allegation of desertion was not proved and that it was on account of the harassment and ill-treatment on the side of her in-laws that she had shifted her residence to NGO Quarters at Kakkanad. It was found that there was no evidence to prove the alleged cruelty.

8. With reference to the gold ornaments, though the husband had produced photocopy of a letter as Ext.A3, the contention raised by RW1 was that she had written the said letter at the instance of PW1. However, it was observed that from Ext.A3 letter it cannot be presumed that she had taken away all her gold ornaments. Therefore, it was held that Ext.A3 will not help PW1 to deny the claim for return of gold ornaments to RW1.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on two judgments of this Court.

(i) Pankajakshan Nair v. Shylaja & Another, (2017) 1 KerLJ 739. This judgment was cited to emphasise that the initial burden of proving entrustment of gold ornaments is on the plaintiff.

(ii) Abubakker Labba and Another v. Shameena K.B. and another, (2018) 3 Ke