IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that prolonged separation and ongoing conflict amounted to an irretrievable breakdown of marriage, justifying divorce.

JUDGMENT :

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

By the impugned common judgment, the Family Court, Ottappalam, disposed of three original petitions. Two of them were filed by the wife against the husband—one seeking the return of gold ornaments and money, and the other claiming past and future maintenance for herself and their child. The third petition, filed by the husband, was for a decree of divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act . The learned Family Judge dismissed the wife's petition for the recovery of money and gold ornaments, and allowed the maintenance claim only insofar as it related to the child. The husband's divorce petition was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the respective adverse decrees, both the husband and wife have filed appeals challenging those parts of the judgment.

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 1.05.2011 in accordance with Hindu rites, and a male child was later born to them. The wife claimed that, at the time of marriage, she received 51 sovereigns of gold ornaments from her parents. She alleged that, shortly after the marriage, 40½ sovereigns of those ornaments were entrusted to the husband and his parents, who subsequently misappropriated them for purchasing land in the husband's name.

3. The wife further alleged that she is unable to maintain herself and that the husband has neglected to provide for her and their minor child since 16.04.2014. Based on this, she claimed past and future maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month for herself and Rs.10,000/- per month for the child. She also asserted that the husband is employed abroad, earning a monthly salary of approximately Rs. 1,00,000/-.

4. The husband denied all the above allegations. He further filed a petition seeking divorce, alleging that the wife began exhibiting erratic behaviour soon after she became pregnant. On one occasion, she allegedly threw stones at his mother. He further contended that she frequently quarrelled with him over trivial matters and had even threatened to commit suicide by jumping from the upper floor of their residence when they were residing abroad. After the child’s birth, the wife allegedly refused to return to the matrimonial home. According to the husband, any possibility of reunion is now foreclosed, as the wife has consistently behaved in a cruel manner, resulting in an irretrievable breakdown of their marital relationship.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondent.

6. The first point for determination is whether the wife is entitled to recover gold ornaments and money from the husband and his parents. It is not in dispute that the wife was adorned with 51 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. Her assertion in this regard, made both in the petition and in her chief affidavit, remained unchallenged. In support of her claim, she also relied on Ext.A3, a purchase bill/estimate, and Ext.A4 series of photographs, which also substantiate her claim.

7. However, the allegation regarding the entrustment of the gold ornaments remains seriously disputed. When the wife deposed that 40 ½ sovereigns of gold ornaments were entrusted to the husband and his parents (the other respondents), the husband stoutly denied it. At the same time, the husband has made a significant admission while giving evidence. He said that the gold ornaments were once entrusted to him by the wife. His contention is that he returned all of them to her before he went abroad. He states as follows:

In suppor