IMPORTANT POINT
Economic abuse and mental cruelty can justify divorce, assessed on a case-by-case basis considering unique circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

M.B. Snehalatha, J.

1. By this judgment, we are disposing of Mat.Appeal.No. 283/24 preferred by the husband challenging the judgment and decree of divorce granted by the Family Court and Mat.Appeal.No.895/2024 filed by him challenging the judgment and decree declining the relief of restitution of conjugal rights sought by him.

2. Since the issues involved in both these appeals are interlinked and intertwined, both these appeals are jointly disposed of for the sake of convenience and to avoid conflict of decisions.

3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred to by their rank in O.P.No.254/2020 as the petitioner and the respondent.

4. The petitioner/wife filed O.P.No.254/2020 seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act , 1869 stating that her marriage with the respondent/ husband was solemnized on 31.12.2018 as per rites and ceremonies of Christians; that at the time of marriage, she was working as a Sub Engineer at Techno Park, Thiruvananthapuram and the respondent was doing M S in Mechanical Engineering at United Kingdom of Britain. She contended that at the time of fixing the marriage, the respondent had told her and her family that he has got campus selection in a multi national company and on completion of his studies, he will get work permit in U.K itself so that he can take the petitioner also to U.K in spouse visa and it was by believing the words of the respondent and his family, petitioner and her family agreed for the marriage. At the time of marriage, she was given 55 sovereigns of gold ornaments and an amount of ₹30 lakhs as patrimony. Apart from that, 2 sovereigns of gold ornaments were gifted to respondent and 3 sovereigns of gold ornaments were gifted to his mother. The respondent did not get any campus selection in U.K as represented by him and it was a false story made by him to marry the petitioner. Her further allegation is that respondent/husband, subjected her to cruelty and pressurized her to transfer an amount of ₹20 lakhs which stood in her bank account, to the joint account with him, but she could not oblige to the said demand. Infuriated by the same, respondent ill treated the petitioner and subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally. After completing studies though he came back to Kerala, he did not take interest in seeking any job here. Respondent/husband was not affectionate towards the petitioner and he neglected the petitioner, which caused mental harassment to the petitioner. After returning from U.K also, the respondent insisted the petitioner to transfer the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs to his account and when she resisted the said demand, he manhandled her in the presence of his parents on 22.02.2020. Respondent physically and mentally harassed the petitioner and subjected her to cruelty and due to his cruelty, petitioner returned to her parental home on 22.02.2020 itself. Subsequently, on 01.03.2020, the petitioner along with her parents had reached the house of the respondent to have an amicable settlement of the issues between the couple. But the respondent and his father ill treated the petitioner and her parents and locked them up in a room and the petitioner and her family had to seek the help of Police. Due to the cruelty meted out from the respondent, petitioner does not want to continue her marital relationship with the respondent. Hence, she sought for dissolution of marriage.

5. Respondent/husband filed counter admitting the marriage and denying the allegations of cruelty. He contended that he had not made any misrepresentation regarding the job as alleged. Respondent did not know how much gold ornaments were given to the petitioner. The allegations of cruelty levelled against the respondent are false and there was no mental or physical harassment, as alleged. Respondent was treating the petitioner with love, care and affection. Petitioner was happily residing with the respondent during the period when they were together. It was only due to th