BINDU Vs. V.K.SATHYAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of matrimonial issues relating to a couple. OP(HMA) No.68/2008 has been filed by the petitioner/wife seeking divorce alleging cruelty. The Family Court dismissed the same against which Mat.Appeal No.599/2012 has been filed. OP No.1156/2010 has been filed by the petitioner/wife seeking return of patrimony and value of gold ornaments. The said petition had been decreed and challenging the same husband has filed Mat.Appeal No.1/2013.

(2.) The short facts of the case are as under and the parties are described as shown in OP(HMA) No.68/2008 unless otherwise stated. Petitioner and the respondent got married on 28/12/2000 as per Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. The contention urged by the petitioner/wife was that at the time of marriage, she was adorned with 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.50,000/- was given as parental share. But, the respondent's mother and unmarried sister were not happy with the quantum of gold ornaments and money. They started harassing her indicating that the respondent would have obtained at least 100 sovereigns of ornaments, cash and car. The respondent nor his relatives showed any love or affection towards her and she was not permitted to live peacefully. The mother and sister of the respondent was managing the whole affairs in the house. Though the petitioner complied with her marital obligations, she was being illtreated and she was asked to do all the domestic work in the house by treating her as a servant. According to her, when a porcelain vessel fell from her hands and it broke, her mother in law brutally assaulted her and the respondent slapped on her face. She fell down and she was unattended. The respondent was a Sales Tax Officer at the time of marriage. He was not interested to take the petitioner when he was transferred to Ottappalam. She further contended that she had to attend a test on 9/9/2001 at Ernakulam which was not permitted by respondent's mother and sister. Further, she was not allowed to attend the betrothal ceremony of the respondent's sister which was held on 8/9/2002. Respondent's sister's marriage took place on 26/12/2003, but she continued to reside in the house. When she questioned the respondent about the same, she was brutally assaulted and was taken to her parental home. She started living separately since 9/2/2004 and therefore she sought for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

(3.) Petitioner further contended that out of the gold ornaments given to her, 40 sovereigns were appropriated by the respondent including the money given as parental share. Respondent denied the allegations. According to him, himself, mother or sister has never assaulted the petitioner as alleged. According to him, it was the petitioner who did not want to continue the relationship. His mother was 78 years old and she was not able to behave in a cruel manner as alleged. According to him, they were living peacefully without any problem. He further stated that neither he nor his mother or sister prevented the petitioner from attending the test or attending the betrothal ceremony as alleged. In fact, husband also filed OP(HMA) No.468/2009 for restitution of conjugal rights. All the three cases were jointly tried and disposed by a common judgment. As evidence in the case, petitioner/wife was examined as PW1 and the respondent/husband as RW1. Ext.A1 marriage certificate alone is produced in the case.