JUDGMENT : Mary Joseph, J. These three Mat. Appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 20.12.2008 of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor (hereinafter referred to as 'the court below') in OP (HMA) No. 467/2008, O.P.(G&W) No. 468/2008 and O.P. No. 960/2007 respectively. 2. The appellant in Mat.Appeal.No.254/2009 and 255/2009 is the petitioner and the respondent is the respondent respectively in O.P. (HMA) No.467 of 2008 and OP(G&W) No.468/2008. The appellants in Mat.Appeal.No.269 of 2009 are the respondents and the respondent is the petitioner in O.P.No.960 of 2007. 3. The parties to these appeals are referred to hereinafter as 'the petitioner' and 'the respondent' in accordance with their original status in the respective original petitions. 4. O.P.(HMA) No.467/2008 was filed seeking for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. O.P.(G&W) No.468/2008 was filed seeking custody of the minor child. O.P.No.960/2007 was filed seeking return of gold ornaments. 5. All the three cases were tried jointly by the court below and vide common judgment dated 20.12.2008, O.P.(HMA) No. 467/2008 was dismissed; O.P.No.960/2007 was decreed in part and the petitioner/wife was held entitled to realise 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its present approximate value of Rs.4,50,000/- with interest from respondents 1 and 2; O.P.No.468/2008 was disposed of with a direction to the respondent therein to continue to have custody of the minor child until further orders and the petitioner is allowed to visit the child once in a month on every second Saturday at the respondent/wife's residence. Costs was also allowed. 6. The aggrieved petitioner respectively in O.P.(HMA) No. 467/2008 and O.P.(G&W) No. 468/2008 and the respondents in O.P.No.960/2007 have filed these Mat.Appeals contending that the common judgment passed by the court below in the aforesaid cases is against the law, the facts and the evidence in the case. 7. Sri. P.S. Biju advanced arguments to convince that the court below has erred in appreciating the evidence and passing the impugned judgment and thereby, miscarriage of justice is meted out to the appellant. 8. In Mat.Appeal.No.254/2009, the contentions raised with reference to O.P.(HMA) No. 467/2008 are as follows:- 1. The appreciation of evidence by the court below was in the wrong perspective. 2. The court below failed to note from the evidence adduced by the petitioner that marital relationship has been irretrievably broken and there is no chance for reunion. 3. 8. In Mat.Appeal.No.254/2009, the contentions raised with reference to O.P.(HMA) No. 467/2008 are as follows:- 1. The appreciation of evidence by the court below was in the wrong perspective. 2. The court below failed to note from the evidence adduced by the petitioner that marital relationship has been irretrievably broken and there is no chance for reunion. 3. The evidence satisfactorily establishes that the parties were living separately for the last five years and the grounds raised are desertion and cruelty. In the said circumstances, the court below ought to have granted a decree in favour of the petitioner. 4. By declining to grant a decree of divorce, the court below has denied a legitimate right of the parties to have a separate family life. 9. In the backdrop of the contentions raised, the evidence on record is re-appreciated. As we have already observed, evidence was let in, in common in all the three cases in a joint trial. The husband was the petitioner in all cases and he has sworn to the relevant facts in the proof affidavit in tune with his pleadings. The allegations against the wife as sworn to in the proof affidavit are to the following effect:- The wife behaved cruelly towards him and his mother and refused to look after the latter. She left the matrimonial home and started living a wayward life. In cross-examination, it has come out that he was living separately from the wife from 2003 onwards. According to him, the allegation of the wife that the house, where they were staying together, was sold in order to avoid the company of the wife was not true. Admittedly, mediation talks were there at the instance of one Mr.Bhaskaran on 15.12.2003 to unite them, but that turned futile. Admittedly, the wife is willing to live with him, but he is not. RW1, the wife has filed proof affidavit wherein she has sworn to in clear terms the entire contentions taken in the objection filed by her. According to her, at the time when they were residing together at Ernakulam, the petitioner had ill-treated her after consumption of liquor, based on demands of dowry and she was sent to her parental home after conception by the petitioner himself and he did not turn up to take her back to the matrimonial home. 10. The respondent took the effort to examine her father also. 10. The respondent took the effort to examine her father also. He testified as RW2. According to him, on obtaining information of sustainment of injuries by his daughter from the torture of the petitioner, he rushed to the house and as requested by him, the daughter and the child were taken to the parental home. According to him, her daughter and child are residing with him and he is looking after their affairs. 11. Evidently, the petition seeking divorce was filed on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. As we have already observed, the facts sworn to in the proof affidavit filed by PW1 are strictly confined to his pleadings in the original petition. When cruelty is alleged as a ground for divorce, the petitioner must have specific pleadings with reference to the instances of cruelty meted out by the respondent and those have to be established by cogent and reliable evidence. Evidently, the petitioner in the case on hand has relied only on his own testimony to support his case. Neither he has succeeded in raising precise pleas about cruelty in his petition nor to adduce evidence to establish the same. No other witness was examined on his side. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is only his interested testimony. 12. Normal wear and tear of family life is not what is contemplated by the term 'cruelty' found in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriages Act,1955. It is something more than that and the party opting it as a ground has to establish that on account of the cruel treatment of the opposite party, his life has become miserable and he found it impossible to continue the same. In the case on hand, only the interested testimony of PW1 is there on record, that the respondent did not care to look after the affairs both of himself and his mother and accordingly, left the matrimonial home on her own, forever to lead a wayward life. This version of PW1 was totally denied by the respondent. According to the respondent, she is living at her parental home but not on her own volition. She was constrained to leave the matrimonial home on account of the ill-treatment of the petitioner after consumption of liquor. This version of PW1 was totally denied by the respondent. According to the respondent, she is living at her parental home but not on her own volition. She was constrained to leave the matrimonial home on account of the ill-treatment of the petitioner after consumption of liquor. She got her father examined as RW2 and he testified in corroborative terms that his daughter was taken to parental home on account of the sustainment of injuries following ill-treatment of the petitioner. Therefore, it follows therefrom that sufficient and satisfactory evidence has not been let in by PW1 to establish the ground of cruelty raised so as to entitle him to a decree of divorce. 13. As far as the ground of desertion is concerned, the interested testimony of PW1 alone is there to say that the respondent has quitted the matrimonial home wilfully. The evidence so let in by PW1, when viewed in the light of the evidence let in by RW1 and RW2, will not support his case that the respondent left him on her own volition. RW1 has spoken in the box that the petitioner sent her back to her parental home and did not turn up to take her back to the matrimonial home. PW1 has also no case that despite the efforts taken by him, the respondent did not turn back to join him. But, PW1 has stated in specific terms that the respondent is willing to join him, but he did not. It is therefore clear from the evidence that the petitioner failed to establish wilful desertion by the respondent and accordingly, his case turned a failure. The court below has rightly observed so and declined to grant the relief of divorce to him, which is sustainable in law, on the facts and the evidence on record. 14. A contention was also seen taken by the petitioner in the appeal memorandum that the marriage of the parties has been irretrievably broken and the court below ought to have granted a decree of divorce on that basis. But, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, the petitioner has not made it clear to the court through evidence that the marriage was irretrievably broken. The specific case of the respondent that she desires to have a reunion also stands against the said contention. 15. In Mat. But, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, the petitioner has not made it clear to the court through evidence that the marriage was irretrievably broken. The specific case of the respondent that she desires to have a reunion also stands against the said contention. 15. In Mat. Appeal No.255/2009 originated from O.P(G&W) No.468/2008, the evidence of PW1 was that the respondent was not a caring person and therefore, he needs the custody of his child. The child is a female one and minor aged 8 years. It has come out in evidence that she was under the custody of her mother. It is the specific case of the respondent established through her version as RW1 and that of her father as RW2 that she was constrained to leave the parental home due to the ill-treatment of the petitioner. PW1 has also admitted in cross-examination that after 2003, he had never visited the parental home of the respondent to take herself and her child back to the matrimonial home. Admittedly, the child was with the respondent for the last five years preceding the filing of the original petition seeking custody of the child. The latter part of the above versions of RW1 and RW2 was admitted by the petitioner while testifying in the court below. Therefore, evidently the minor girl was residing with her mother in the maternal father's house for the last five years. Indisputably, the entire affairs of the minor girl from birth till the attainment of the age of 8 years was looked after by the respondent. Therefore, the minor girl must be more affectionate to her mother and would prefer to have her company rather than that of the petitioner with whom she had not shared her life at any point of time till date. The minor girl has also stated, when interacted by the court below to ascertain her choice of company, that she prefers to be with the respondent. It has been settled by various judicial pronouncements on the question of custody that the minors' welfare is of paramount consideration of the courts when applications seeking custody are dealt with. The minor girl has also stated, when interacted by the court below to ascertain her choice of company, that she prefers to be with the respondent. It has been settled by various judicial pronouncements on the question of custody that the minors' welfare is of paramount consideration of the courts when applications seeking custody are dealt with. Here is a case where a minor girl who had the chance to have an uninterrupted life in the company of the respondent from birth till 8 years expressing her choice in specific terms before a court of law that she prefers to be in the company of her mother, her desire is to be given effect to. If she is detached from the company of the respondent against her will and forcibly sent with the petitioner, rather than enjoying the life, she would be thrown out to severe consequences, which later on may turn out to be incurable. Moreover, being a girl child, who is at the age of eight years, nearing the age of puberty, the company of respondent would be helpful and beneficial to her in all respects. The welfare of the child requires a free life in the company of the person of her choice. That is what the court below has done through the judgment under challenge. The court below has also considered the petitioner's entitlement, being the father and natural guardian of the child and accordingly, allowed visitorial rights vide the judgment under challenge. Interference is not warranted at this stage and we are declined to reverse the same. 16. In Mat. Appeal No. 269/2009 filed against the judgment in O.P.No.960/2007, the evidence let in by the petitioner therein (wife)who is the respondent herein as RW1, that of her father as RW2 and Ext.B1, the extract of the marriage register are available. The case of RW1 was that gold ornaments of 50 sovereigns, a sewing machine and household items worth Rs.15,000/- were given towards her share at the time of her marriage with the respondent(husband). It is also her case that those were mis-appropriated by her husband and mother. The claim of RW1 that 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given was admitted by the husband, but the factum of appropriation and allegation of pledging were denied. It is also her case that those were mis-appropriated by her husband and mother. The claim of RW1 that 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given was admitted by the husband, but the factum of appropriation and allegation of pledging were denied. The husband, when cross-examined has stated that some of the gold ornaments were taken by the mother and aunt of the wife. But, PW1 was seen contradicted by the respondent based on those aspects on the ground that those did not find a place in his objection filed before the court. Therefore, those versions spoken first in point of time in the court were of no relevance. It is true, the case of PW1 that the gold ornaments were taken by RW1 when she left the matrimonial home is denied by her, but no suggestion was seen put to her by PW1 to the effect that those were taken by her. In such a circumstance, an inference can safely be taken that the gold ornaments were in his custody as averred by the respondent and he is bound to return the same. The oral evidence of RW1 and RW2 satisfactorily establish the factum of entrustment of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage which was also admitted by the petitioner. Ext.B1, the extract of the marriage register also stands in proof of entrustment. The interested testimony of PW1 alone is there to indicate that RW1 had taken the gold ornaments with her at the time when she left the matrimonial home. Independent corroboration is lacking on that aspect. Therefore, the preponderance of probabilities brought in cross-examination stand in favour of the respondent, to support her case that gold ornaments were misappropriated by the petitioner. The corroborative versions of RW1 and RW2 coupled with the evidence of PW1 in cross-examination satisfactorily establish the case of the respondent. Therefore, in our considered opinion, there is nothing wrong in the court below passing the decree for return of gold ornaments in favour of the respondents and directing the petitioner to do so. Interference is not called for in the matter. The court below has appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and passed the impugned common judgment. In view of the aforesaid discussion, all the three Mat.Appeals fail. The finding of the court below is confirmed. The Mat.Appeals are dismissed without any order as to costs.