ARVIND SADASIVAN Vs. PRIYANKA PANKAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband who is the appellant in all the above appeals challenges common judgment passed by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram (for short "the court below") in OP Nos.756/2013, 897/13 and 898/13 dated 26/5/2017.

(2.) The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 1/6/2010 at Trivandrum Club, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram in accordance with Hindu customary rites. There is no issue in the wedlock. Admittedly the appellant and the respondent lived together only till 24/1/2013. The appellant was a businessman. The father of respondent was also a businessman. The definite case of the respondent/wife is that right from the inception of marriage, their marital life was not cordial and happy. It was alleged that the appellant had no interest in sex and failed to discharge his marital obligation as a husband. In the bedroom he was more interested in seeing obscene pornographic videos, it was alleged. According to the respondent, the appellant used to pick up quarrel with her for no reason. It was further alleged that the appellant had always entertained suspicion about the morality and chastity of the respondent and on many occasions, he even asked her whether she shared bed with her male friends. The respondent has also highlighted instances where she was even physically assaulted by the appellant. The respondent further projected a case that her mother-in-law used to torture her. The respondent further specifically alleged that the appellant was greedy for money and always found one way or other to extract money from her father. According to her, at the time of marriage, she was given with 200 sovereigns of gold ornaments and she further received 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments as gift from friends and relatives. After the marriage, the appellant and his parents compelled her to hand over all the gold ornaments to pledge the same in the bank so as to utilize the amount for his business purpose. Thus, the appellant took away 213 sovereigns of gold ornaments from her and pledged the same in the bank for his business. It was never returned. It was also alleged that the appellant insisted her to get money from her father to buy a property at Attipra Village and due to repeated compulsion, she demanded money from her father who gave Rs. 50,00,000/- to purchase the land in the joint name of the appellant and the respondent, but, the appellant clandestinely purchased the property in the joint name of himself and his brother. Thereafter, the appellant again demanded Rs.50,00,000/- for his business purpose and her father arranged a loan of Rs.30,00,000/- by mortgaging his own property and paid to him. Though he agreed to repay the same, it was not paid. The respondent asserted that there were regular instances of outrage and resentment by the appellant causing serious mental agony and pain to her. It was in these circumstances, she preferred original petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty as OP No.897/2013 and another original petition for return of gold ornaments and money as OP No.898/2013.

(3.) The appellant specifically denied various instances of cruelty allegedly exercised by him on the respondent and pleaded in the original petition. According to him, it was the respondent who often quarrelled with him and failed to discharge marital obligations. The case of the respondent that she was given 200 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage by her parents, that 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments were gifted by her friends and relatives and those gold ornaments were handed over to the appellant at his instance to pledge the same with the bank and that later on, the father of the respondent paid to the appellant Rs.50,00,000/- to purchase the property and another Rs.30,00,000/- for his business purpose etc. are denied by the appellant. It was contended that all the gold ornaments worn by the respondent at the time of marriage were kept under her custody and are in her possession. It was further contended that the gold ornaments pledged by him for his business purpose were his own gold ornaments. According to him, he was a loving and dutiful husband and it was the respondent who left his company unilaterally without any valid reason. All his attempts to take her back to the matrimonial home failed due to the adamant attitude of the respondent, it was contended. Hence, he instituted original petition as OP No.756/2013 for restitution of conjugal rights.