IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SATHISH NINAN, SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ,
Jojo Chacko – Appellant
Versus
Preethi Jojo – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.
The above Mat. Appeals are filed challenging the common judgment dated 16.01.2014 in O.P Nos. 16, 20 and23 of 2013 of the Family Court, Pala.
Mat.Appeal Nos.229 of 2014 and 337 of 2014 are filed by the husband and wife respectively, aggrieved by the judgment in O.P No. 20 of 2013 filed by the wife against the decree for return of money and gold ornaments.
Mat. Appeal No.240 of 2014 is filed by the husband against the dismissal of his O.P No. 16 of 2013 for declaration of title and injunction.
Mat Appeal No. 539 of 2014 is filed against the dismissal of O.P No. 23 of 2013 filed by the husband for divorce.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’.
2. The brief facts leading to the case are as follows:-
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on28.12.1998. A male child was born in the wedlock. After marriage, the husband went to Gulf country in connection with a job. According to the husband, they lived together only for a short period. The wife did not have any interest in physical relationship with the husband. When the wife came to know that the husband is coming to India in May, 2010, she filed a complaint

Prolonged separation and lack of cohabitation constitute grounds for divorce, while the burden of proof for property claims lies with the claimant.
The court affirmed that mental cruelty, including harassment and false allegations, constitutes grounds for divorce, and recognized the wife's entitlement to property purchased with her gold ornament....
The court affirmed the husband's liability to return financial claims to the wife, establishing the burden of proof on the husband regarding misappropriation and confirming divorce on grounds of crue....
Cruelty in marriage can be established through a course of conduct causing mental agony, and an irretrievable breakdown of marriage justifies divorce.
The undisclosed medical condition of a spouse can constitute grounds for divorce on the basis of cruelty, and the burden of proof regarding the return of gold ornaments lies with the husband.
The court ruled that gold ornaments misappropriated by the husband must be returned to the wife, with a decree affirming her claims substantiated by credible evidence.
Prolonged separation in marriage can constitute grounds for divorce, evidencing irretrievable breakdown, while claims for return of marital assets must be substantiated with evidence.
The court held that the husband failed to prove the return of gold ornaments entrusted to him, affirming the wife's entitlement to recover 36 sovereigns based on the burden of proof principle.
The burden of proof lies on the husband to demonstrate the handling of gold ornaments retained by the wife, particularly in cases of misappropriation claims.
Point of law : Demand of dowry – cruelty - Insatiable urge for wealth and sex of a spouse would amount to cruelty
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.