IMPORTANT POINT
Trust in property relations between spouses endures post-divorce, allowing recovery actions without limitation.

JUDGMENT :

P. Krishna Kumar, J.

1. The wife filed a petition for recovery of money and maintenance from the husband. She also filed an application under Section 10 (1)(x) of the Divorce Act for a decree of dissolution of marriage. She also claimed maintenance for herself and three minor children, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, from the husband. By the impugned common judgment, the trial court partly allowed the petition for recovery of money, gold ornaments and maintenance. A decree for divorce was also granted on the ground of cruelty. The claim for maintenance for the children was rejected, finding that they were being looked after by him. The above appeals are preferred by both sides, challenging the respective adverse findings against them.

2. The factual contentions of the wife, which are relevant in the appeals, can be summarised as follows: The marriage was solemnised on 14th September 1993 as per Christian rites and customs, and three children were born to them in their wedlock. At the time of marriage, her parents gave her 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Further, Rs.2,00,000/- was given to the husband as pocket money by her parents at the time of marriage. While they were living together in the parental house of the husband, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty. The mother- in-law also subjected her to severe harassment, demanding more dowry. The husband and wife shifted their residence to a rented house and continued there for 10 years. The husband went on to torment her, and as a result, the wife suffered immense mental agony and stress. She was compelled to dispose of all her gold ornaments for the husband. Using the amount received from the sale of gold ornaments, together with the pocket money, a residential building was purchased in the name of the respondent. Both of them resided together in the said building after purchasing it, but the husband kept ill-treating her. On certain occasions, the wife was forced to take shelter in the houses of her relatives, fearing harassment at the hands of the husband. Pursuant to the intervention of her brother, both of them reunited on 03/05/2006. But when the brutal behaviour of the husband persisted, she was compelled to resort to legal recourse. A criminal case was registered at Valiyathura Police Station against the husband and his mother under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The husband resisted the petition by contending that the wife possessed only 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments, and that he never took them from her. He admitted of having received Rs.2,00,000/- at the time of the marriage. He also denied the allegations regarding ill-treatment and the related incidents. According to him, he is employed as a worker in a ration shop run by his father and brother, and earns only a meagre salary of Rs.1,500/- per month. He further contended that the property was purchased using his own hard-earned money. The wife is employed in a resort run by her brother and draws a salary of Rs.50,000/-, he urged.

4. We have heard Adv. Smt. Geetha Job, the learned counsel appearing for the wife, and Adv. Sri. V.G. Arun, the learned counsel appearing for the husband.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the wife submitted that the Family Court erred in limiting the wife’s claim to Rs.7,00,000/-, as the present value of the gold ornaments is much higher than the said amount. The learned counsel further submitted that the husb