IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN, JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ
Mahadevan S/o.krishnan – Appellant
Versus
Bijula A.P. D/o.krishnan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. final decision (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT
These appeals arise from a common order dated 27.03.2015 in OP No.122 of 2015 and OP No. 162 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court, Vatakara.
3. Mat. Appeal No.114 of 2017 is filed by the wife challenging the decree of divorce granted to the husband by the Family Court. Mat. Appeal No. 1254 of 2016 is filed by the husband challenging the decree for return of gold ornaments to the wife.
5. The husband contended that, immediately after the marriage, he came to know that the wife was suffering from epilepsy and other illnesses. He further contended that, when they were leaving her parental home after marriage, she fell down in the railway station and manifested symptoms of fits and fainted for five minutes. The mother of the wife pacified the husband that it might be due to the stress of leaving the loved ones. However, after reaching the matrimonial home at Chennai, the wife was frequently manifesting symptoms of fits and she used to fall down and faint frequently. Thereafter, the behaviour of the wife towards the husband became strange and cruel; and she ignored the husband and was sitting alone
Rajesh P.P. & Another v. Deepthi P.R.
Pankajakshan Nair v. Shylaja & another
Syamini S. Nair & others v. Sreekanth R.
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 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....
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.
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 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....
Prolonged separation in marriage can constitute grounds for divorce, evidencing irretrievable breakdown, while claims for return of marital assets must be substantiated with evidence.
A divorced woman is entitled to Mahar and other properties provided under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
Prolonged separation and lack of cohabitation constitute grounds for divorce, while the burden of proof for property claims lies with the claimant.
Cruelty in marriage can be established through a course of conduct causing mental agony, and an irretrievable breakdown of marriage justifies divorce.
The court upheld the validity of a decree for the return of gold ornaments based on insufficient counter-evidence and adequate testimonial support from the petitioner.
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.