Insufficient evidence of financial claims led to the dismissal of the wife's petition while the marriage was dissolved on the basis of irretrievable breakdown of the marital relationship.

JUDGMENT :

P. Krishna Kumar, J.

The wife filed a petition for recovery of gold and money allegedly entrusted to the husband at the time of marriage and thereafter. The husband also filed a petition for divorce on the ground of matrimonial cruelty. By the impugned common judgment, the Family Court dismissed both the petitions. The husband and wife challenge the respective adverse orders by preferring the above appeals. For the sake of convenience, the wife will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner and the husband as the respondent.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 2.12.1982 in accordance with the Hindu rites. Two girl children were born in this wedlock. The petitioner contended that at the time of marriage, 100 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹5,00,000/- were given by her parents. She further contended that on different occasions, her parents, brother and sister, who were working abroad, together gave ₹6,00,000/-, which she entrusted to the respondent. Using the said amount, the respondent purchased a flat in which they had been living together. The petitioner was constrained to entrust all the gold ornaments to the respondent on different occasions. Using her gold and money, the respondent purchased 7 cents of property in Elamakkara, Ernakulam, and later sold it for ₹35,00,000/-. Towards alimony, the petitioner raised a claim of ₹8,00,000/-. When her father passed away in 2005, she received ₹5,00,000/- in cash as her share in the family property, and that amount was also entrusted to the respondent. Accordingly, she filed the original petition for recovery of a total amount of ₹75,00,000/- from the respondent.

3. The respondent denied all the above allegations and contended that the wife had only 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The allegation regarding receipt of money from her family members was also stoutly denied. According to him, he purchased the property at Elamakkara in 1991 by availing a loan and using his savings. He also contended that he had given 90 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹15,00,000/- at the time of the elder daughter’s marriage.

4. In the petition filed for divorce, the respondent further contended that the petitioner subjected him to cruelty and always behaved in an indifferent and uncultured manner. She often refused to have sexual relations with him and frequently threatened to commit suicide. Owing to the humiliating character and cruel behaviour of the petitioner, the marital relationship had broken down for all purposes, and hence he was entitled to a decree of divorce, it was contended.

5. The petitioner filed an objection denying the above allegations, and according to her, it was the respondent who used to ill-treat her.

6. We have heard Sri. N.K. Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner forcefully submitted that she hails from an aristocratic family and that her father was working in the British Merchant Navy at the time of her marriage, and therefore, it is presumable that when she was given in marriage, she would have been provided with sufficient gold and money, which was the prevailing custom in society. To substantiate the contention that documentary evidence cannot be insisted upon for proving the availability of gold ornaments or money at the time of marriage, the learned counsel placed heavy reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 2.7.2005 in X v. Y , Mat Appeal No.773/2020 .

8. By referring to Ext.B1 series wedding photographs, the trial court found that the