The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible evidence to support claims of cruelty and demand for dowry, as well as the justification of maintenance based on the respondent's failure to prove his income.

JUDGMENT

A.M.Shaffique, J. - The respondent in O.P.No. 388/2011 has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment dated 20/5/2014, by which a decree had been granted by the Family Court dissolving the marriage between the couple, and directing return of 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments and in the alternative to pay ?9 lakhs to the 1st petitioner and also maintenance in favour of the petitioners.

2. The short facts of the case would disclose that the 1st petitioner and the respondent got married on 6/5/2007 as per Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. It is the case of the 1st petitioner that at the time of marriage, she was adorned with 67y2 sovereigns of gold ornaments. After the marriage, the gold ornaments were entrusted to the respondent. During the marital life, she was being treated with cruelty by the respondent, by abusing her and not treating her properly. There was also a demand for more dowry. A child was born in the wedlock and even while she was at her house, she was being abused. The respondent was a drunkard and was not willing to take care of the petitioner and their child. The respondent left the petitioner and the child on 5/11/2008 when their son was 7 months old. He never came back to enquire about them. It was further alleged that in addition to the gold ornaments she was wearing at the time of marriage, her family had given a gold chain weighing 3 sovereigns to the respondent, an ear ring weighing half sovereign and a bracelet chain weighing 4 sovereigns, which are also in the possession of the respondent. She contended that she was having only 30 sovereigns of her gold ornaments including the wedding chain and the balance 45 sovereigns were sold by the respondent and the sale proceeds was utilised by him for his own purposes. She further contended that the respondent was having sufficient income, but he was not taking care of the petitioner and the minor child and therefore, she sought for maintenance as well. The petition was later amended claiming the value of certain household articles given to the respondent, after their marriage.

3. Respondent/appellant denied the allegations of cruelty and appropriation of gold ornaments. He contended that when his wife was taken for delivery, she was wearing all her gold ornaments. But when she came back after delivery, she was not wearing all the gold ornaments given at the time of marriage. He also denied the fact that he had appropriated any of her gold ornaments and denied the obligation to pay any maintenance. He also raised a counterclaim for restitution of conjugal rights.

4. Evidence in the case consists of oral testimony of the parties. On the side of the petitioner, three witnesses were examined. Respondent relied upon the testimony of DW1 and DW2. The Family Court believed the version of the petitioner and allowed the claims as stated above.

5. While impugning the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Family Court failed to consider the pleading and evidence in the case properly. It is pointed out that the petitioner was unable to prove that she was having 67 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. The document relied upon by the petitioner by itself was not enough to prove that she was having such quantity of gold ornaments. That apart, there is no evidence of entrustment or appropriation of the gold ornaments. It was also argued that the Family Court committed serious error in directing dissolution of the marriage as there is no evidence of any cruelty being meted out against the wife/petitioner. Learned counsel also pointed out that the maintenance awarded was not in accordance with the settled principle of law, as the petitioner was remaining away from the company of the respondent without valid cause.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners supported the judgment of the Family Court and it is contended that no materials had been placed before this Court to take a dif