Point of Law: It is sufficient if conduct and behaviour of one spouse towards other is of such a nature that it causes reasonable apprehension in mind of latter that it is not safe for him/her to continue marital tie.

JUDGMENT :

Kauser Edappagath, J.

This is an appeal filed u/s 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree in OP No. 846/2012 dated 26/5/2015 on the file of the Family Court, Alappuzha (for short, 'the court below').

2. The original petition has been filed by the husband, who is the appellant, for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery and cruelty and also for return of gold ornaments. The 1st respondent is his wife. The 2nd respondent is the alleged adulterer. The marriage between the appellant and the 1st respondent was solemnized on 10/9/2001 at the residence of the 1st respondent as per Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. A girl child was born in the wedlock on 11/7/2002. At the time of marriage, the appellant was employed at NEST. According to the appellant, right from the inception of the marriage, the 1st respondent used to quarrel with him and his family members unnecessarily. It is alleged that 1st respondent did not allow him to lead a peaceful life and constantly nagged him. It is further alleged that the 1st respondent wanted to lead a luxurious life which the appellant could not afford to. In May, 2008, the appellant got transfer to Bangalore. Thereafter, she started wayward life of her own and used to contact the appellant over phone only when she needed money and failed to discharge her marital obligation. In March, 2009, the appellant went to Gulf for job. Thereafter, she started illicit relationship with the 2nd respondent and when he came to know of it, he quit his job and returned home on 31/5/2010. It is alleged that the 1st respondent has been maintaining illicit relationship with the 2nd respondent. The appellant has projected a specific instance of adulterous act of the 1st respondent. It is alleged that on 11/11/2010 at 10.00 a.m., the 1st respondent was caught red handed from the house of the 2nd respondent. It was witnessed by the appellant, his father, the mother of the 1st respondent and local people. Thereafter, the 1st respondent's mother took her into an autorickshaw to her own house and since then, they are living separately. It was in these circumstances the divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty was sought. The appellant also claimed back wedding chain weighing 6 sovereigns of gold ornaments given by him to the 1st respondent.

3. The 1st respondent filed objection statement denying the averments in the original petition. She specifically denied various instances of cruelty allegedly exercised by her on the appellant and pleaded in the original petition. According to her, it was the appellant who often quarrelled with her and failed to discharge the marital obligation. It was contended that the appellant misappropriated 42 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.50,000/- received by her as gift at the time of her marriage. It is further contended that the appellant did not pay any amount to maintain her or the child. The case of illicit relationship between the 1st respondent and 2nd respondent alleged in the original petition as well as the incident allegedly took place on 11/11/2010 was also denied. The 1st respondent sought for dismissal of the petition.

4. The appellant has also filed OP No.570/2013 for the custody of the minor child. Both the original petitions were tried together. The appellant was examined as PW1. His neighbour was examined as PW2. Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the appellant. The 1st respondent was examined as CPW1. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the respondent. After trial, the court below found that the appellant failed to prove cruelty as well as adultery on the part of the 1st respondent. The court below also found that the appellant cannot claim back the wedding chain given by him to the 1st respondent so long as the marital relationship continues. Accordingly, the original petition was dismissed as per the impugned judgment. Challenging the dismissal of the prayer for dissolution of marriage, the appellant has preferred t