Point of law : Demand of dowry – cruelty - Insatiable urge for wealth and sex of a spouse would amount to cruelty

JUDGMENT :

Kauser Edappagath, J.

husband who is appellant in all above appeals challenges common judgment passed by Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram (for short “ court below”) in OP Nos.756/2013, 897/13 and 898/13 dated 26/5/2017.

2. marriage between appellant and respondent was solemnized on 1/6/2010 at Trivandrum Club, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram in accordance with Hindu customary rites. There is no issue in wedlock. Admittedly appellant and respondent lived together only till 24/1/2013. appellant was a businessman. father of respondent was also a businessman. definite case of respondent/wife is that right from inception of marriage, their marital life was not cordial and happy. It was alleged that appellant had no interest in sex and failed to discharge his marital obligation as a husband. In bedroom he was more interested in seeing obscene pornographic videos, it was alleged. According to respondent, appellant used to pick up quarrel with her for no reason. It was further alleged that appellant had always entertained suspicion about morality and chastity of respondent and on many occasions, he even asked her whether she shared bed with her male friends. respondent has also highlighted instances where she was even physically assaulted by appellant. respondent further projected a case that her mother-in-law used to torture her. respondent further specifically alleged that appellant was greedy for money and always found one way or other to extract money from her father. According to her, at time of marriage, she was given with 200 sovereigns of gold ornaments and she further received 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments as gift from friends and relatives. After marriage, appellant and his parents compelled her to hand over all gold ornaments to pledge same in bank so as to utilize amount for his business purpose. Thus, appellant took away 213 sovereigns of gold ornaments from her and pledged same in bank for his business. It was never returned. It was also alleged that appellant insisted her to get money from her father to buy a property at Attipra Village and due to repeated compulsion, she demanded money from her father who gave Rs.50,00,000/- to purchase land in joint name of appellant and respondent, but, appellant clandestinely purchased property in joint name of himself and his brother. Thereafter, appellant again demanded Rs.50,00,000/- for his business purpose and her father arranged a loan of Rs.30,00,000/- by mortgaging his own property and paid to him. Though he agreed to repay same, it was not paid. respondent asserted that there were regular instances of outrage and resentment by appellant causing serious mental agony and pain to her. It was in these circumstances, she preferred original petition for dissolution of marriage on ground of cruelty as OP No.897/2013 and another original petition for return of gold ornaments and money as OP No.898/2013.

3. appellant specifically denied various instances of cruelty allegedly exercised by him on respondent and pleaded in original petition. According to him, it was respondent who often quarrelled with him and failed to discharge marital obligations. case of respondent that she was given 200 sovereigns of gold ornaments at time of marriage by her parents, that 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments were gifted by her friends and relatives and those gold ornaments were handed over to appellant at his instance to pledge same with bank and that later on, father of respondent paid to appellant Rs.50,00,000/- to purchase property and another Rs.30,00,000/- for his business purpose etc. are denied by appellant. It was contended that all gold ornaments worn by respondent at time of marriage were kept under her custody and are in her possession. It was further contended that gold ornaments pledged by him for his business purpose were his own gold ornament