IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SATHISH NINAN, SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.
P.M. Geroge S/o Mathai - Appellant
Versus
Leelamma George D/o George - Respondent
MAT. Appeal Nos. 5, 53 of 2014
Decided On : 18-02-2025
(A) Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 10(i)(ix) and (x) - Appeal against dismissal of divorce petition and claim for return of gold ornaments - Parties married on 18.05.1970, living separately since 19.05.1984 - Husband sought divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion; wife claimed cruelty and sought return of gold - Court found irretrievable breakdown of marriage after 40 years of separation, granting divorce to husband and partially allowing wife's claim for gold. (Paras 2 - 17 )
(B) Cruelty - Definition and implications of prolonged separation as a form of cruelty - Court referenced judgments establishing that continued separation may indicate irreconcilable differences. (Paras 10 - 11 )
(C) Evidence - Lack of documentary proof for claims regarding gold ornaments led to partial allowance of wife's claim. (Paras 15 - 16 )
(D)
Issues: The court addressed whether the husband was entitled to a divorce and the validity of the wife's claim for the return of gold ornaments. (Para 12 )
Findings of Court:
The court determined the marriage had irretrievably broken down, and while the wife had not proven her claim for 50 sovereigns of gold, she was entitled to 12 sovereigns. (Paras 12 - 16 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the significance of prolonged separation as indicative of irretrievable breakdown, and the burden of proof on the husband regarding the wife's claims for gold. (Paras 10 - 12 )
Result: Mat Appeal No. 53 of 2014 is allowed, granting divorce; Mat Appeal No. 5 of 2014 is allowed in part, modifying the judgment regarding gold ornaments.
Key Points: - (!) The court held that the marriage has irretrievably broken down due to prolonged separation since 1984, constituting grounds for divorce. - (!) The wife’s claim for 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.25,000 was not proven; 12 sovereigns were found to be returnable, and the Rs.25,000 claim was rejected for lack of sufficient evidence. - (!) The appeals were disposed of: divorce granted to the husband; wife’s claim for return of 12 sovereigns of gold ornaments granted as monetary realization; other claims denied. - (!) Prolonged separation can constitute cruelty or irretrievable breakdown, justifying divorce in elderly parties. - (!) Pankajakshan Nair v. Shylaja cited to emphasize burden on the husband to prove wife’s entrustment/ownership; lack of documentary proof undermines the claim. - (!) Mat Appeal No. 53 of 2014: divorce; (!) Mat Appeal No. 5 of 2014: partial modification granting monetary realization of 12 sovereigns. - (!) The court references Samar Ghosh and other judgments to treat prolonged separation as cruelty or irretrievable breakdown.
JUDGMENT :
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.
1. The husband is in appeal against the common judgment in two Original Petitions. Since the parties are the same, the above Mat.Appeals are being heard together and disposed of by this judgment.
2. Mat. Appeal No. 53 of 2014 is filed challenging the dismissal of the petition for divorce in O.P.No.261 of 2012 filed by the husband under Section 10(i)(ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act, 1869.
3. Mat.Appeal No.5 of 2014 is filed challenging the order passed in O.P.No.553 of 2012 filed by the wife for return of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and money.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’.
5. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 18.05.1970 and two children, a girl and a boy, were born in their wedlock. The husband and wife were living separately from 19.05.84. The girl child was with the husband and the boy was with the wife. Divorce was sought on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The husband alleged that, in 2010 he had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights as O.P.No.1179 of 2010 but withdrew the same in the year 2010 itself, finding that the wife is not willing to stay with the husband. Thereafter in 2012 he filed the petition for divorce. In the same year the wife filed the petition for return of gold ornaments and money. The husband alleged that the wife started living separately, abandoning the husband. Though several efforts were made by the husband for reconciliation, the wife was adamant and did not return to the matrimonial home. After more than 20 years of separation, the husband sought for divorce under cruelty and desertion.
6. The wife contended that the husband and his family members treated the wife with mental and physical cruelty. The wife was given 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.25,000/- as patrimony. A further claim of 5000 was also made, towards the cost of household articles listed out in Schedule ‘B’ of the petition. Few months after marriage on the demand of the husband’s family, 14 cents of property with a building was conveyed by her father in her name. On 18.05.84 the husband abused and assaulted her and threatened to kill her. On 19.05.84 her brother and uncles came to her matrimonial home and took her home to attend her brother’s marriage on 20.05.84. Though the husband and his family members were invited for the marriage, they did not attend the wedding. While leaving the matrimonial home, they permitted her to take only the younger child and kept the daughter away from the wife. The wife alleged that the conduct of the husband made it impossible for the wife to continue residence with him. She claimed that the gold and money given by her family was appropriated by the husband. Thus she filed a petition for return of gold and money. She also sought for dismissal of the petition for divorce.
7. We have heard Sri Jacob Pallath, learned counsel for the appellant-husband; and Smt. Monisha K.R, learned counsel for the respondent-wife.
8. First of all, we shall consider the question whether the husband is entitled to a decree for divorce. There is dispute between the parties regarding the date of marriage and date of separation. According to the wife, the marriage was on 18.05.1970 and the husband contends that the date of marriage was on 02.01.1970. The date of separation as claimed by the wife is 19.05.1984, and according to the husband is 02.01.1986. No document has been produced to prove the date of marriage. While the husband was examined as PW1 he said that he was not sure about the date of marriage but deposed that the wife went on the previous day of the marriage of her brother. Per contra, the wife has stated that she left the matrimonial home on the previous day of her brother’s marriage, which was on 20.05.1984. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the family court has found that the date of marriage is on 18.05.1970 and she left the matrimonial home on 19.05.1984. We do not find any reaso
Prolonged separation in marriage can constitute grounds for divorce, evidencing irretrievable breakdown, while claims for return of marital assets must be substantiated with evidence.
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.
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 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....
Judgment supports divorce due to desertion, highlighting lack of evidence for claims of cruelty.
The court recognized the dissolution of marriage based on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, determining that no reconciliation was possible.
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....
Desertion under the Divorce Act implies abandonment against the wish of the other spouse; entitlement to maintenance must be assessed in light of circumstances surrounding the separation.
The court established that prolonged separation and ongoing conflict amounted to an irretrievable breakdown of marriage, justifying divorce.
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.