The court recognized the dissolution of marriage based on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, determining that no reconciliation was possible.

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

By a common judgment, the Family Court, Chavara, partly allowed the petition filed by the wife seeking recovery of gold ornaments, patrimony, and declaration of title over the petition schedule property, while dismissing the husband’s petition for a decree of divorce. These appeals have been filed by both parties, each challenging the portion of the judgment adverse to their respective interests. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in O.P. No.233/2013, the petition filed by the wife for recovery of money and gold. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 12.09.2005. The petitioner alleges that, at the time of her marriage, she was given 38 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.1,00,000/- by her parents. According to her, after the marriage, she entrusted the said gold ornaments and money to the first respondent/husband. She therefore contended that she is entitled to recover the money and gold ornaments and to get back the property.

3. The respondents contested the petition by denying the above allegations. They also set up a counterclaim for recovery of 7 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the petitioner.

4. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court partly allowed the claim made by the petitioner and permitted her to recover Rs.1,00,000/-, which was deposited in the post office account of the husband, together with interest. Though the court found that the petitioner was not entitled to recover the gold ornaments as claimed, based on the admission made by the first respondent that the sale proceeds of about 20 sovereigns of her gold ornaments were deposited in the joint names of the petitioner and the first respondent, the court further permitted the petitioner to recover the amount deposited in the Alappadu Panchayat Service Co-operative Bank, Cheriyazheekkal Branch. The petitioner was also permitted to get back the property. The counterclaim was allowed, and the first respondent/husband was permitted to recover 7 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the petitioner.

5. In O.P. No.713/2013, the husband alleged that, from the very inception of the marriage, he had been subjected to cruelty at the instance of the wife. According to him, she frequently quarrelled with him for flimsy reasons and alleged that his parents had cheated her by suppressing the fact that he had “chovvadosham”. She allegedly ridiculed him in the presence of his relatives, friends, and employees by stating that he was incapable of leading a marital life. Their only child succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road accident while travelling along with the petitioner/wife. Even in relation to the said incident, she allegedly harassed the husband by contending that it occurred due to incompatibility of their horoscopes. The husband further alleged that, due to such conduct, his marital life had become a complete failure. He also contended that the wife deserted him on 25.02.2007 and, therefore, he was entitled to a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

6. The wife stoutly resisted the petition for divorce, contending that she never behaved cruelly towards the first respondent and that, on the contrary, it was the husband who treated her with cruelty.

7. After evaluating the evidence on record, the trial court concluded that none of the instances pointed out by the husband was sufficient to dissolve the marriage on the ground of cruelty or desertion.

8. We have heard the learn