IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that abusive behavior constitutes cruelty justifying divorce, while dismissing claims for maintenance and compensation due to lack of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J

1. Mat. Appeal Nos. 560 of 2013 and 620 of 2014 arise from the common judgment dated 15.06.2013, in O.P.Nos.1513 of 2010 and 1512 of 2010 passed by the Family Court, Kottayam. Mat.Appeal No.296 of 2018 arises from the order dated 07.08.2017, in O.P.No.210 of 2014 passed by the Family Court, Pala. Since the parties are the same and the issues involved are interconnected, the above Matrimonial Appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Mat. Appeal No. 560 of 2013 is filed by the wife challenging the judgment passed in O.P.No.1513 of 2010 for recovery of gold ornaments and money.

3. Mat. Appeal No.620 of 2014 is filed by the husband challenging the judgment in O.P.No.1512 of 2010 against the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, Kottayam.

4. Mat. Appeal No.296 of 2018 is filed by the wife challenging the order in O.P.No.210 of 2014, dismissing her prayers for compensation and past maintenance.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as 'husband' and 'wife'.

6. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The marriage between the husband and the wife was solemnized on 12.01.2002, and a son was born in the wedlock in the year 2004 who suffers from serious physical deformities, which was admitted by both the parties. Their relationship got strained and they were living separately from 26.10.2010 onwards. She is not intending to continue her conjugal relationship. The wife claimed that she was given Rs. 20 Lakhs in cash at the time of betrothal and 100 sovereigns of gold, including gold coins at the time of marriage, by her father. She further claimed that another amount of Rs. 5 Lakh was borrowed by the husband from the wife's father.

7. In Mat. Appeal Nos.560 of 2013 and 620 of 2014, evidence consists of Exts.A1 to A17 on the side of the wife, Ext.B1 on the side of the husband and Ext.X1 as witness exhibit. PWs 1 to 5 and RW1 were examined before the Family Court. In Mat. Appeal No.296 of 2018, Exts.A1 to A7 on the side of the wife. PWs 1 to 4 were examined on the side of the wife and DW1 was examined on the side of the husband. No documentary evidence was adduced by the husband.

8. We have heard Smt.Kavery S.Thampi, the learned counsel appearing for the wife and Sri.Grashious Kuriakose, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the husband assisted by Sri.George Mathews.

9. Firstly, we consider Mat.Appeal No.620 of 2014 filed by the husband against the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court. According to the wife, her matrimonial life was miserable since the husband was a drunkard. He ill-treated her physically as well as mentally. She claimed that the husband was having mental disorder and he was taking treatment from T.T.K. Hospital, Chennai. He was also incapable of performing sexual activities due to the intake of strong medicines.

10. The husband contends that when a child was born with physical deformities, the wife used to abuse him and it was her misbehaviour that led to the husband becoming an alcoholic, which made him get admitted in T.T.K. Hospital, Chennai for treatment.

11. During cross-examination, PW1 had stated that due to the alcoholic nature of the husband, she had suffered both mental and physical cruelties. She has also testified that he was treated in T.T.K. Hospital, Chennai for de-addiction treatment. Her evidence was supported by her father, PW2 and her brother, PW3. PW4 was the mediator, who interfered to settle the issues between the husband and wife; and PW5 was the doctor, who had examined the husband and issued Ext.X1 certificate. The doctor had deposed that he had undergone treatment due to alcoholism and he was under treatment with strong medications. A perusal of Ext.X1 certificate reveals that he was having some behavioural problem and alcoholic dependency. Other than the oral evidence of the husband, he did not examine any family member to prove his case.

12. It was the wife's case that the mot