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 ornaments.

JUDGMENT :

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

1. The husband is the appellant in the above two appeals filed against the common judgment in O.P.Nos.1072/2011 and 1058/2010 of the Family Court, Nedumangad. Mat Appeal No.299/2014 is filed by the husband against the decree for dissolution of marriage, and Mat Appeal No. 300/2014 is filed against the decree declaring the wife as the absolute owner of item Nos.1 to 3 in Schedule “A” properties, and to return 24 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its present market value, Rs. 1,00,000/- given as pocket money and Rs. 2,00,000/- as value of household articles. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as husband and wife.

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

The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 28.05.2009. A child was born in their wedlock. According to the wife, 41 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to her at the time of marriage. On the date of ‘Adukkalakanal’, a gold chain weighing 4½ sovereigns and a bracelet of 2½ sovereigns were given to the husband, and two gold bangles weighing one sovereign each were given to the husband's mother and sister, respectively. An extent of 50 cents of property was settled by her father in favour of the daughter and son-in-law. The wife claimed that 2.500 cents of property and house were purchased by selling 11½ sovereigns of gold ornaments. Further, adjacent property admeasuring 1.750 cents and house were purchased in the name of the wife and husband by the wife’s father by selling 15½ sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to the wife. The wife alleges that out of 41 sovereigns of gold ornaments, she was left with only 14 sovereigns. All the gold ornaments were entrusted to her mother-in-law and sister-in-law and were not returned to her. It was also alleged that there were several incidents of harassment during her pregnancy, including demands for increased dowry.

Furthermore after being enrolled for post graduation, she was prohibited from writing her examinations and was also restricted from contacting her parents over the phone. Thus, she filed a complaint before the Women’s Commission, Thiruvananthapuram and due to the interference of the Women’s Commission, she was allowed to write the first semester examination. The husband allegedly prohibited her from pursuing her education. The wife further alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and physical assault by the husband. Consequently, a police case was registered at Nedumangad Police Station. Moreover, M.C.No.37/2010 was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumangad under the Domestic Violence Act. The wife claimed declaration of title over the properties described as ‘A’ schedule item Nos.1 to 3, further sought for return of 24 sovereigns of gold ornaments or their present market value, Rs. 1 lakh given as pocket money and Rs. 2 lakh being the value of household articles given to the husband. Further, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was also claimed towards delivery expenses.

3. The husband denied the entrustment of amounts by her father and also denied the allegation that the properties were purchased by selling the gold ornaments and with the money spent by his father-in-law. He contended that the properties were acquired using his own funds and therefore she was not entitled to claim ownership or declaration of title over the properties. He further denied the allegation of misappropriation of gold ornaments weighing 24 sovereigns. The allegation that she was prevented from writing the examination was denied. Instead claimed that he had not subjected her to any cruelty. He furth