The Kerala High Court has delivered a detailed ruling in a long-running matrimonial dispute, balancing financial claims with principles of fairness under personal law. While the court upheld a woman’s right to recover money and gold ornaments given at the time of marriage, it firmly set aside the award of past maintenance to her after confirming that she had deserted her husband without reasonable cause.
Background of the Case
The case arose from two connected matrimonial appeals filed by a husband against a common judgment of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha. The marriage, solemnised in June 2003 according to Christian rites, broke down after the wife returned to her parental home during pregnancy and did not resume cohabitation after the birth of their child in December 2005.
Read also:- No Bail for NDPS Accused: Delhi High Court Cites Commercial Quantity Recovery
The husband had earlier sought divorce on multiple grounds, including desertion, cruelty, and adultery. The Family Court granted divorce only on the ground of desertion. Alongside this, it directed the husband and his father to return ₹2 lakh and 28 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the wife, and also awarded her past maintenance and maintenance for the minor child.
Although the husband accepted the divorce granted on desertion, he challenged the orders relating to gold, money, and the wife’s maintenance before the Kerala High Court.
Claims Over Gold and Money
Before the High Court, the wife maintained that ₹3.5 lakh was entrusted to the husband’s father at the time of engagement as her share in family property, and that part of this amount was used to purchase gold ornaments for her marriage. She alleged that 28 sovereigns remained in the custody of the husband’s family after separation.
Read also:- Supreme Court Grants Divorce to Karisma Panigrahi, Clears All Cases After Mutual Settlement
The husband admitted receipt of the money but claimed that the gold ornaments were bought from his own funds and that the wife retained them.
After examining oral evidence, including testimonies of the wife and her mother, the bench found their version consistent and credible. The court noted that the husband failed to produce any documentary proof to show that the gold was purchased from his personal income.
“The version of the wife and her witnesses appears more probable and stands corroborated by circumstances,” the bench observed, adding that mere suggestions put during cross-examination could not override consistent evidence.
The court also relied on the husband’s own admission that most of the ornaments were kept in his custody after marriage. On this basis, it upheld the direction to return 28 sovereigns of gold or its market value, along with ₹2 lakh already admitted to have been received.
Read also:- Supreme Court Transfers Matrimonial Case from Chennai to Kalyan Citing Wife's Hardship
Court’s View on Maintenance
The more significant legal question arose around the wife’s entitlement to past maintenance. The divorce decree on the ground of desertion had become final, as the wife did not appeal against it.
The High Court explained that even though the Divorce Act, 1869 does not explicitly say that desertion must be “without reasonable cause,” such a requirement must be read into the law to ensure constitutional fairness.
“Desertion cannot be understood in a manner that punishes a spouse who lives apart for a just cause,” the bench said, warning that a literal reading would violate principles of equality and personal dignity under the Constitution.
Applying this reasoning, the court held that once desertion was finally established, it necessarily meant desertion without reasonable cause. In such circumstances, the wife’s conduct became relevant.
Read also:- Eviction Put on Hold: Delhi High Court Backs Tenant’s Right to Trial
Referring to Section 37 of the Divorce Act, the bench noted that a spouse’s conduct must be considered before awarding alimony. “Having found that the wife deserted the husband, the Family Court ought not to have granted her past maintenance,” the judges ruled.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the husband’s appeal challenging the return of gold and money. However, it partly allowed his appeal against the maintenance order by setting aside the award of past maintenance to the wife, while retaining maintenance granted to the minor child.
With this, the court upheld the Family Court judgment in all other respects and closed the matter without costs.
Case Title: Shaji Sebastian v. Julie Joseph
Bench: Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar
