JUDGMENT :

Sophy Thomas, J.

The husband is the appellant in Mat.Appeal Nos.76 and 86 of 2020, and the cross objector in C.O No.73 of 2020. The wife is the appellant in Mat.Appeal No.168 of 2020 and the respondent in the other proceedings.

2. The wife filed O.P No.45 of 2019 for a decree of divorce, and O.P No.46 of 2019 for recovery of patrimony, before the Family Court, Pala. The Divorce O.P was decreed in her favour, against which the husband preferred Mat.Appeal No.76 of 2020. Her O.P for recovery of patrimony as well as the counterclaim by the husband for recovery of a gold chain were dismissed, against which the husband filed Mat.Appeal No.86 of 2020 and the wife filed Mat.Appeal No.168 of 2020. Apart from that, the husband filed a cross objection opposing Mat.Appeal No.168 of 2020 filed by the wife.

3. O.P Nos.45 and 46 of 2019 were tried together by the Family Court, Pala. After formulating necessary issues, the parties went on trial. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A8 series were marked from the side of the wife and DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.B1 to B48 were marked from the side of the husband. After analysing the evidence in a cursory manner, the Family Court decreed O.P No.45 of 2019 dissolving their marriage, and dismissed O.P No.46 of 2019 rejecting her claim for patrimony in toto and also dismissed the counterclaim put forward by the husband. Hence the parties have come up with the above appeals, and cross objection.

4. Now let us have a reappraisal of the facts and evidence to find out whether there was any illegality or impropriety in the judgment impugned, warranting interference by this Court.

5. The wife shall be referred as the appellant and the husband shall be referred as the respondent hereinafter.

6. The appellant filed O.P No.45 of 2019 for dissolution of her marriage on the ground of matrimonial cruelties. Her marriage with the respondent was solemnised on 03.06.2013. They went for a honeymoon trip on 12.06.2013 and even according to the respondent, they lived together, only upto 03.07.2013. So, their marital relationship lasted for just one month, and it ended up with their honeymoon.

7. The case of the appellant is that, the respondent was cruel in his nature and behaviour and he was never a loving or caring husband. He was an addict to porn videos and he had no interest in leading a normal marital life with the appellant. He was interested in gay sex. He was always watching obscene videos in his bedroom. During their train journey to Jaipur from Udaipur, an altercation occurred between them, and the respondent pushed her forcibly, and luckily she did not fall from the train. She stopped her journey and returned to her work place. She is so sure that, if she had continued with him, it would have been dangerous to her life.

8. The respondent opposed her contentions and according to him, he was a very loving and caring husband and he never ill-treated his wife. At the same time, he is admitting the unhappy incident that occurred in their train journey during their honeymoon trip. He is admitting that, they parted their ways on 03.07.2013 i.e. just after one month of their marriage. DW2, the mother of the respondent, also supported him saying that, there was no ill-treatment towards the appellant and the couple were very happy after their marriage. Admittedly, the appellant came back to her matrimonial home on 20.08.2013. But she returned to her paternal house on 08.11.2013. According to the respondent, he belongs to a very rich and reputed family and he is well educated and a loving husband. If that be so, in normal course, no wife will abandon her matrimonial life, that too just after one month of the marriage.

9. Before hearing the appeals, we also attempted for an amicable settlement to find out whether the parties could be reconciled to resume their marital relationship. But it did not work out as the appellant was adamant in her stand that she could not continue with him without fear of life.