Judgment supports divorce due to desertion, highlighting lack of evidence for claims of cruelty.

Sathish Ninan, J.

These appeals arise from the proceedings between the husband and the wife.

2. Mat.Appeal No.2 of 2016 arises from the original petition filed by the husband, seeking a decree of divorce. The original petition was allowed by the Family Court against which the wife is in appeal.

3. Mat.Appeal No.14 of 2016 is against the judgment in the original petition filed by the wife against the husband, seeking recovery of gold and money. The original petition was allowed in part. The wife is in appeal challenging that part of the decree which negatived her claim.

4. Mat.Appeal No.15 of 2016 is filed by the wife challenging the dismissal of the original petition filed by her seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

5. The marriage between the parties was solemnsied on

28.06.2007. According to the wife, at the time of marriage, she was provided with 203 sovereigns of gold ornaments and an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. The wife alleges misappropriation of 186 sovereigns of gold and the money by the husband.

6. While the husband did not deny the receipt of Rs.3,00,000/-, he contended that the amount was given for modification of his house. The claim of the wife with regard to Rs.1,00,000/- was denied by the husband. The claim of the wife that at the time of marriage she had 203 sovereigns of gold ornaments, out of which 186 sovereigns were misappropriated by the husband, was also denied.

7. The Family Court negatived the claim for gold ornaments and granted a decree for Rs.3,00,000/-.

7. Husband sought divorce alleging cruelty and desertion. Though, the wife denied the allegations levelled, the Family Court upheld the plea of cruelty and granted a decree of divorce. In the light of the decree in the divorce petition, the original petition for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed.

8. We have heard Shri.T.R. Harikumar, the learned counsel for the wife and Dr.K.P. Pradeep, the learned counsel for the husband.

9. Firstly, coming to the claim of the wife for 186 sovereigns of gold ornaments, it is the contention of the husband that the ornaments of the wife were kept by her in a locker, which was maintained and operated by her. It has come out in evidence that the wife had an account with the Medical College Branch of the Central Bank of India, where she had a locker facility. The wife as PW1 did not deny the allegation that she was having such a locker facility. The wife had no case that the husband had operated the locker or that they had operated it jointly. The husband as CPW1 deposed that he had not operated the locker of the wife. The same is not challenged during cross-examination. In the above circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the Family Court that there is no evidence to prove misappropriation of the gold ornaments belonging to the wife, is justified. The finding of the Family Court in the said regard warrants no interference.

10. Coming to the original petition for divorce, the allegation is that the wife failed to take part in the rituals in connection with his father's demise. The pleading is that, on the 3^rd day of the demise, the wife returned to her house without waiting for 16^th day rituals. It is the case of the wife that it was the period of her menstrual cycle and hence she could not participate in the 16^th day rituals. Yet another allegation is that, because of the failure of the wife to accompany him to Karnataka, where he got an employment, he could not accept the employment. However, the same is not substantiated by any evidence. The other allegation is that the wife was quarrelsome with his mother. The said allegation also remain unsubstantiated. We are unable to concur