Wife entitled to recover gold ornaments misappropriated by husband’s family, and maintenance awarded, while divorce granted due to irretrievable breakdown of marriage after prolonged separation.

JUDGMENT

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

A common order passed by the Family Court, Thrissur is under challenge at the instance of the husband and his parents.

2. The wife filed O.P.No.240/2013 seeking recovery of 165 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹5,00,000/- from the husband and his parents. She also instituted M.C.No.151/2013 claiming maintenance for herself and the child. The husband, in turn, filed O.P.No.1310/2014 for divorce on the ground of cruelty. By the impugned common order, the Family Court allowed the petition filed by the wife and directed the husband and his parents to return 165 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The wife and the child were awarded monthly maintenance at the rate of ₹7,500/- and ₹4,000/- respectively. The petition for divorce was, dismissed.

3. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in O.P.No.240/2013. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 03.12.2007. A male child was born in the wedlock on 28.05.2009.

4. Let us first consider the allegations in O.P.No.240/2013. According to the petitioner, at the time of her marriage, her parents provided her with 150 sovereigns of gold ornaments, out of which 145 sovereigns were entrusted to respondents 1 to 3 as trustees, on her arrival at the matrimonial home. Those ornaments were allegedly pledged by respondents 1 to 3 on various occasions, resulting in their eventual loss. After the birth of the child, her relatives presented 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments for the child, but those ornaments were also taken away by the respondents. The respondents are alleged to have pledged 60 grams of gold ornaments at South Malabar Gramin Bank, Guruvayur Branch on 16.08.2012, 56 grams in the same bank on 06.09.2012 and 97 grams at Indian Overseas Bank, Guruvayur Branch on 08.09.2012. It is further alleged that the respondents pledged her ornaments at other financial institutions such as Guruvayur Gramin Bank, Service Co- operative Bank, Chittattukara, Muthoot Finance, etc.

5. The respondents contend that all allegations, except the factum of marriage and the birth of the child, are false. The petitioner, according to them, had no means to possess 165 sovereigns of gold ornaments. At best, she might have had only 35 sovereigns. They further contend that it was the petitioner who pledged her ornaments either by herself or through others and appropriated the proceeds. They also claim that the petitioner still retains the Thali chain given by the first respondent, weighing 10 sovereigns.

6. The first respondent/husband filed the divorce petition alleging that he was subjected to severe mental cruelty from the inception of the marriage. He further alleged that the petitioner started consuming liquor soon after the marriage and followed a modern lifestyle which was not acceptable to him. He also accused her of initiating a false criminal case against him with the assistance of a family friend who is a police officer. These allegations were stoutly denied by the petitioner, who asserted that it was the first respondent who ill-treated her.

7. Alleging that the first respondent had been neglecting the petitioner and the child, the wife filed the maintenance case seeking monthly maintenance of ₹10,000/- each. She contended that she was unable to maintain herself and that the first respondent was working abroad, earning a monthly salary of ₹60,000/-. The first respondent denied these