The court affirmed the findings of the Family Court on property ownership and established that mental cruelty justified divorce.

SATHISH NINAN &

P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 27^th day of November, 2025

J U D G M E N T

Sathish Ninan, J.

The original petition filed by the husband against the wife seeking declaration of title over the property and for dissolution of marriage, was decreed by the Family Court. The respondent-wife is in appeal.

2. An extent of ten cents of property was purchased under Ext.A2 Sale Deed dated 13.10.2005 in the joint names of the husband and wife. Thereafter a residential house was constructed in the property. It is the claim of the husband that the property was purchased and the building was constructed with his funds. The wife claimed that she also contributed for the acquisition of the property and for the construction of the house. The source for the same was from her tailoring and garments business and also the contribution from her brothers who are abroad. She also claims that the sale consideration obtained by sale of 25 cents of property that belonged to her, was also utilised.

3. The husband seeks dissolution of marriage alleging physical and mental cruelty. The allegations were refuted by the wife. She in turn alleged physical and mental cruelty at the hands of the husband. It is also alleged that her husband is maintaining illicit relationship with a lady.

4. On the evidence adduced by both sides, the trial court upheld the claim of the husband with regard to the title over the property and also the allegation of cruelty.

5. We have heard learned counsel on either side.

6. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on

23.02.1981. It is not in dispute that since the year 1984 the husband is employed abroad. The acquisition of the property under Ext.A2 sale deed was on 13.10.2005. Exts.A3(a) and A3(b) are the Bank account statements evidencing the source for purchase of the property and the construction of the building. Ext.A6 certificate from the contractor also acknowledges receipt of the amounts from the husband.

7. Though the wife claimed that she was having income from tailoring and garments business conducted by her, there is total lack of evidence to find that she was doing such business or that she had any source of income. Though she claimed that her brothers, who are claimed to be abroad, had provided funds to her for the purpose, neither the brothers is examined nor were any documents produced evidencing their contribution.

8. With regard to the claim that an extent of 25 cents of property which belonged to her was sold and its consideration was utilised for the acquisition of the property and construction of the house, however, there is lack of evidence in the said regard also. Thus, the sources claimed by the wife to contend that she had also contributed for the acquisition of the property and construction of building, remain unsubstantiated.

9. Thus appreciating the rival evidence, we are in agreement with the Family Court in having held that the acquisition of the property and the construction of the building was by the husband, by utilising his funds. The decree granted declaring his title over the property and the building, warrants no interference.

10. Coming to the relief of divorce, the ground urged is cruelty, both physical and mental. The wife alleged that the husband is maintaining illicit relationship with one Asha. However, while she was examined as CPW1, she did not swear about it. The daughter who was examined as CPW2 and the wife's sister who was examined as CPW3 also did not adduce any evidence on such allegation. Raising such baseless allegations against the spouse is sufficient enough to find mental cruelty.

11. Though the husband alleged physical assault on him by the wife and relied on Ext.A10 treatment certificate issued from the General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, we do not think it necessary to go into it since we have found that mental