HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Sathish Ninan, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ
P.M. GEROGE – Appellant
Versus
LEELAMMA GEROGE – Respondent
Mat.Appeal 5/2014
(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.
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 r
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.