An appeal for return of marriage expenses is not maintainable if based on alleged deceit, especially post-divorce granted on cruelty grounds.

Devan Ramachandran,J.

This appeal is impelled against the judgment of the learned Family Court, Muvattupuzha, in O.P.No.343/2020.

2. The appellant - who is the former husband of the

1^st respondent - alleges that the latter and her parents had conducted their marriage "employing deceit" and that she had, subsequently left her matrimonial home on her own volition; thus, he being entitled to realize all the expenses incurred by him in connection with the marriage. He asserts that he spent Rs.7,81,000/- for the marriage and claims it under various heads - including the purchase of wedding saree and dresses for his former wife; purchase of “Thali Chain”; photography and videography; catering for the wedding feast etc.

3. The learned Family Court took the Original Petition to trial, along with two other matters; and after analyzing the evidence placed on record, dismissed it, holding that the claim of the appellant is untenable since, inter alia the 1^st respondent had already been granted divorce against him, vide Ext.A25, on the ground of cruelty. There is an interesting fact about this judgment, which we will indite in a while.

4. The appellant challenges the afore findings of the learned Family Court, as being illegal and unlawful.

5. Sri.S.Sreedev - learned Counsel for the appellant, asserted that his client was “induced” into the marriage solely because he was not aware that the 1^st respondent was suffering from an ocular / vision problem; and then argued that when his client was thus subjected to deceit by the 1^st respondent and her parents, he became wholly justified in seeking the return of the expenses he had to incur for conducting the marriage. He prayed that, consequently, this appeal be allowed.

6. Smt. T.S.Maya (Thiyandil) - learned Counsel for the respondents, in refutation, submitted that it was the 1^st respondent who filed O.P.No.140/2020 - seeking divorce against the appellant on the grounds of cruelty - which has been allowed through a judgment marked as Ext.A25. She added that the other two cases - which have been decided in common with the Original Petition in question - are also filed by her client: one, seeking return of her gold ornaments, money and compensation, namely O.P.No.384/2020; while, the other seeking maintenance, namely M.C.No.82/2020. She contended that, when her client has been able to establish that she was subjected to cruelty - with a decree of divorce having been thus issued by the learned Court - it was impermissible, if not impossible, for the appellant to have maintained an Original Petition seeking return of the expenses said to have been incurred by him to conduct the marriage. She added that, in any event, even assuming that such a claim could have been maintained, no Court can grant it because the money spent by the appellant was done on his own volition, without any demand from her clients' side that the marriage be conducted in a particular manner or to scale.

7. We have gone through the pleadings on record and have analyzed the evidence and documents as are relevant solely to this case because, the evidence, as said above, stands in common with two more other matters. Though we have not called for the Trial Court records, the copies of relevant documents and testimony have been handed over to us across the bar by the learned Counsel for the parties, with the express consent that it can be relied upon by us in delivering this judgment.

8. The primary question for our decision in this appeal – assuming for the sake of argument that the appellant was “duped” into marrying the 1^st respondent, as he claims, by being not told that she has an ocular / vision problem – is if his plea for retu