JUDGMENT : Kauser Edappagath, J. husband who is appellant in all above appeals challenges common judgment passed by Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram (for short “ court below”) in OP Nos.756/2013, 897/13 and 898/13 dated 26/5/2017. 2. marriage between appellant and respondent was solemnized on 1/6/2010 at Trivandrum Club, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram in accordance with Hindu customary rites. There is no issue in wedlock. Admittedly appellant and respondent lived together only till 24/1/2013. appellant was a businessman. father of respondent was also a businessman. definite case of respondent/wife is that right from inception of marriage, their marital life was not cordial and happy. It was alleged that appellant had no interest in sex and failed to discharge his marital obligation as a husband. In bedroom he was more interested in seeing obscene pornographic videos, it was alleged. According to respondent, appellant used to pick up quarrel with her for no reason. It was further alleged that appellant had always entertained suspicion about morality and chastity of respondent and on many occasions, he even asked her whether she shared bed with her male friends. respondent has also highlighted instances where she was even physically assaulted by appellant. respondent further projected a case that her mother-in-law used to torture her. respondent further specifically alleged that appellant was greedy for money and always found one way or other to extract money from her father. According to her, at 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 marriage, appellant and his parents compelled her to hand over all gold ornaments to pledge same in bank so as to utilize amount for his business purpose. Thus, appellant took away 213 sovereigns of gold ornaments from her and pledged same in bank for his business. It was never returned. It was also alleged that 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 land in joint name of appellant and respondent, but, appellant clandestinely purchased property in joint name of himself and his brother. Thereafter, 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. Thereafter, 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 same, it was not paid. respondent asserted that there were regular instances of outrage and resentment by appellant causing serious mental agony and pain to her. It was in these circumstances, she preferred original petition for dissolution of marriage on 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. appellant specifically denied various instances of cruelty allegedly exercised by him on respondent and pleaded in original petition. According to him, it was respondent who often quarrelled with him and failed to discharge marital obligations. case of respondent that she was given 200 sovereigns of gold ornaments at 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 appellant at his instance to pledge same with bank and that later on, father of respondent paid to appellant Rs.50,00,000/- to purchase property and another Rs.30,00,000/- for his business purpose etc. are denied by appellant. It was contended that all gold ornaments worn by respondent at time of marriage were kept under her custody and are in her possession. It was further contended that 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 respondent who left his company unilaterally without any valid reason. All his attempts to take her back to matrimonial home failed due to adamant attitude of respondent, it was contended. Hence, he instituted original petition as OP No.756/2013 for restitution of conjugal rights. 4. court below tried all original petitions together. PWs1 to 11 were examined on side of respondent and Exts.A1 to A9(a) were marked. CPW1 and CPW2 were examined on side of appellant and Exts.B1 to B16 were marked. Exts.X1 to X24 were marked as court exhibits. After trial, court below dismissed OP No.756/2013 and allowed OP Nos.897/13 and 898/2013. marriage between appellant and respondent was dissolved. appellant was directed to return 213 sovereigns of gold or Rs.50,00,000/-as its value and also to pay Rs.80,00,000/- with interest to respondent as per impugned judgment. Challenging judgment in OP No.756/2013, Mat. Exts.X1 to X24 were marked as court exhibits. After trial, court below dismissed OP No.756/2013 and allowed OP Nos.897/13 and 898/2013. marriage between appellant and respondent was dissolved. appellant was directed to return 213 sovereigns of gold or Rs.50,00,000/-as its value and also to pay Rs.80,00,000/- with interest to respondent as per impugned judgment. Challenging judgment in OP No.756/2013, Mat. Appeal No.245/2018 has been preferred. Challenging judgment in OP No.897/2013, Mat. Appeal No. 309/2018 has been preferred. Challenging judgment in OP No.898/2013, Mat. Appeal No.325/2018 has been preferred. Since all appeals are interconnected, we dispose of same by this common judgment. 5. We have heard Smt. S. Karthika, learned counsel for appellant and Sri. Philip J. Vettickattu, learned counsel for respondent. 6. We will first consider claim of respondent regarding return of gold ornaments and money. In original petition, respondent has specifically pleaded that at time of marriage, she was given 200 sovereigns of gold ornaments by her parents and in addition to that, she received 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments as gift from her friends and relatives and that appellant and his parents compelled her to hand over all gold ornaments to pledge same so as to utilize amount therefrom for business of appellant. It was further pleaded that even though respondent was not agreeable to pledge all gold ornaments, she had no alternative than to obey strict instruction of appellant and his parents and accordingly appellant took 213 sovereigns of gold ornaments from her and pledged same in bank for his business purpose and those gold ornaments were never returned. respondent gave evidence as PW1 and her father gave evidence as PW2. Both of them gave evidence in tune with pleadings. PW1 deposed that all of her gold ornaments except few used for daily wear were kept in bank locker and those gold ornaments were taken by appellant from bank locker while she was away at Chennai in connection with her studies and pledged with bank for raising funds for his business purpose. It has come out in evidence that PW2 was employed in Kuwait for more than 30 years. Thereafter he was running a business as Pankaj Builders. financial capacity of respondent and her father is not disputed. It has come out in evidence that PW2 was employed in Kuwait for more than 30 years. Thereafter he was running a business as Pankaj Builders. financial capacity of respondent and her father is not disputed. PW2 gave evidence that while he was in Gulf, he brought more than 100 sovereigns of gold to India and same was used for making gold ornaments for respondent at time of her marriage. Ext.A1 series are marriage photographs. It would show that respondent was wearing large quantity of gold ornaments on wedding day. court below on analysis of evidence found that gold ornaments shown in Ext.A1 series photographs almost tally with gold ornaments shown in schedule of petition. Exts.A2 and A3 are bills issued from Kalyan Jewellers. Exts.A1 to A3 were not disputed. Thus, evidence of PW1 and PW2 coupled with Exts.A1 to A3 series prove case of respondent that she was given 220 sovereigns of gold ornaments as gift at time of her marriage by her parents, relatives and friends. 7. respondent relied on evidence of PWs1 to 4 and Exts.X1, X4(a) and X10 to X22 to prove entrustment of 220 sovereigns of gold ornaments to appellant and pledging of 213 sovereigns of gold ornaments out of it by him for his business purpose. It is not in dispute that a bank locker was opened in joint name of appellant and respondent at Dhanlaxmi Bank. PW1 specifically deposed that all of her gold ornaments except few used for her daily wear were kept in bank locker and when she was studying in Chennai, appellant pledged her gold ornaments for raising funds for his business purpose. PW3 is Branch Manager of Dhanlaxmi Bank. Ext.X1 is document showing date of opening of locker issued by Dhanlaxmi Bank. evidence of PW3 along with Ext.X1 also would show that a safe deposit locker was opened by appellant and respondent jointly as locker No.63. Ext.X1 would further show that said locker was opened on 24/10/2011, 7/12/2011, 23/12/2011, 22/6/2012, 28/6/2012, 22/10/2012, 12/11/2012, 27/11/2012 and on 3/12/2012. It was appellant who opened locker except on 12/11/2012 and 27/11/2012. 8. appellant has admitted that he had pledged gold ornaments at Catholic Syrian Bank, Thirumala Branch and availed loan for his business purpose. But, according to him, those gold ornaments were obtained by him from his family and not given by respondent. It was appellant who opened locker except on 12/11/2012 and 27/11/2012. 8. appellant has admitted that he had pledged gold ornaments at Catholic Syrian Bank, Thirumala Branch and availed loan for his business purpose. But, according to him, those gold ornaments were obtained by him from his family and not given by respondent. PW4 is Branch Manager of Catholic Syrian Bank, Thirumala Branch. Exts.X4(a), X5 and X10 to X22 were marked through him. Ext.X4(a) is certified copy of extract of SB account maintained by appellant. Exts.X10 to X22 are gold loan opening forms in name of appellant. Ext.X5 gives details of gold loan taken and closed by appellant. PW1 in cross-examination had admitted that she had opened locker on 27/11/2012 and on that day, she had seen her gold ornaments in locker. Relying on said admission, learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that said admission would prove that gold ornaments pledged by appellant with Catholic Syrian Bank were not of respondent. We cannot subscribe to said argument. As stated already, it has come out in evidence that on 3/12/2012, appellant has opened locker as evident from Ext.X1. Ext.X21 would show that appellant had pledged 1600.3 grams of gold ornaments on 3/12/2012 itself for a sum of Rs.36,34,000/- and he closed said loan transaction on 9/2/2013 as evident from Ext.X22. 1600.3 grams is equivalent to 200 sovereigns of gold ornaments. evidence of PW4 coupled with Ext.X22 would show that appellant had renewed another loan on 9/2/2013. case of appellant is that gold ornaments pledged by him were his own gold ornaments. But, it is pertinent to note that there is no such contention in counter statement. In original petition, respondent has clearly pleaded that 213 sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to her were entrusted to appellant who pledged same with Bank to avail loan for his business purposes. It has come out in evidence that appellant had pledged that much quantity of gold ornaments with Bank to avail loan for his business purposes. Thus, burden is on appellant to plead and prove that those gold ornaments were his own gold ornaments. But, there is no such pleading much less proof. No evidence has been adduced to show that those gold ornaments belonged to him. During cross-examination appellant had admitted that prior to his marriage, he did not pledge any gold ornaments at all. Thus, burden is on appellant to plead and prove that those gold ornaments were his own gold ornaments. But, there is no such pleading much less proof. No evidence has been adduced to show that those gold ornaments belonged to him. During cross-examination appellant had admitted that prior to his marriage, he did not pledge any gold ornaments at all. All these evidence clearly support case of respondent that she entrusted 213 sovereigns of gold ornaments to appellant who pledged it with Bank for his business purposes. There is no case for appellant that he returned gold ornaments to respondent. It is settled that once entrustment of gold ornaments by wife to husband is made, a trust gets created and being a trustee, husband is liable to return same. For all these reasons, we are of view that court below was absolutely justified in granting a decree for return of 213 sovereigns of gold ornaments. 9. next claim is regarding Rs.50,00,000/-. Admittedly on 9/7/2011, a property having an extent of 7.1 Ares comprised in Re.Sy.No.133/18-3 of Attipra Village was purchased in joint name of appellant and his brother from one Leela Zacharias who was examined as PW10 as per deed No.110/12 of SRO, Kazhakoottam. According to respondent, as insisted by appellant, her father funded Rs.50,00,000/- to appellant to purchase said property. said amount was arranged by her father by availing a loan from HDFC Bank, it was contended. On other hand, appellant contended that property was purchased for a consideration of Rs.28,40,000/- and entire consideration was paid by him and his brother Arun Sadasivan. 10. PW2, father of respondent, gave evidence that a loan of Rs.50,00,000/- was availed by him and his wife and said amount was directly transferred to account of PW10 to purchase land in name of appellant and respondent. PW9 is Manager (Legal) of HDFC Bank Ltd. His evidence coupled with Ext.X9, certificate and statement of account from HDFC Bank Ltd., would show that PW2 and his wife had taken a loan of Rs.50,00,000/- in July, 2011 and PW2 was repaying loan amount. PW6 is Chief Manager of Bank of India, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.X6 is statement of account of PW2 at Bank of India, Thiruvananthapuram. evidence of PW6 coupled with Ext.X6 would show that on 8/7/2011, Rs.50,00,000/- was deposited in account of PW2 and on 9/7/2011, that amount was transferred by way of RTGS to account of PW10. PW6 is Chief Manager of Bank of India, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.X6 is statement of account of PW2 at Bank of India, Thiruvananthapuram. evidence of PW6 coupled with Ext.X6 would show that on 8/7/2011, Rs.50,00,000/- was deposited in account of PW2 and on 9/7/2011, that amount was transferred by way of RTGS to account of PW10. PW11 is husband of PW10. In evidence, PW10 and PW11 admitted receipt of Rs.50,00,000/- from PW2. They asserted that said amount was transferred by PW2 in connection with purchase of property by appellant from them. They also identified Ext.A8, letter issued by them, evidencing receipt of Rs.50,00,000/-. In Ext.A8 letter, PW10 and PW11 have acknowledged receipt of Rs.50,00,000/- from PW2 in connection with sale of their property to appellant. learned counsel for appellant submitted that admittedly consideration shown in document is only Rs.28,40,000/- and it is quite improbable to believe case of respondent that Rs.50,00,000/- was advanced by her father to appellant to purchase property. True, consideration shown is only Rs.28,40,000/-. But, evidence discussed above would establish that appellant insisted for Rs.50,00,000/- to purchase a property from PW10 and on account of repeated pressure exercised by appellant with respondent, father of respondent availed a loan of Rs.50,00,000/- from HDFC Bank and transferred said amount directly to account of PW10, who admitted receipt of same as towards sale consideration. evidence tendered in this regard by PW10, PW11 and Bank Managers need not be disbelieved. undervaluation, if any, shown in document in a transaction between appellant and PW10 is not at all binding on respondent or her father. They can never be part of such undervaluation. There is nothing on record to show that consideration was paid by appellant or his brother. definite case of appellant is that while receiving amount, appellant promised to purchase property in joint name of appellant and respondent, but, he clandestinely purchased property in joint name of himself and his brother. In these circumstances, respondent is entitled to get back said amount of Rs.50,00,000/- from appellant. 11. next claim is for recovery of Rs.30,00,000/-. According to respondent, after receiving Rs.50,00,000/- mentioned above, appellant again demanded another Rs.50,00,000/-for his business purposes. When respondent expressed her reluctance to give said amount, appellant made a request with father of respondent to arrange a loan of Rs.50,00,000/- for him and promised to repay same within two months. 11. next claim is for recovery of Rs.30,00,000/-. According to respondent, after receiving Rs.50,00,000/- mentioned above, appellant again demanded another Rs.50,00,000/-for his business purposes. When respondent expressed her reluctance to give said amount, appellant made a request with father of respondent to arrange a loan of Rs.50,00,000/- for him and promised to repay same within two months. Thus, PW2 again arranged a loan from HDFC Bank and paid Rs.30,00,000/- to appellant. But, appellant did not repay amount though he paid few instalments. appellant has admitted receipt of Rs.30,00,000/-. But, according to him, said amount was transferred to his account by PW2 for development of his business. Admittedly, PW2 was running a business under name and style “Pankaj Builders”. According to appellant, PW2 invited him to join M/s Pankaj Builders and appointed him as its Vice President and Rs.30,00,000/- was deposited in his account for business purpose of M/s Pankaj Builders and it was used by him for development of business of M/s Pankaj Builders. 12. PW9 is Manager (Legal) HDFC Ltd. Ext.A6 is letter issued by HDFC Bank stating that on 23/7/2012 PW2 and his wife had availed a loan of Rs.30,00,000/- from Bank. Ext.A6 has been proved through PW9. Ext.X9 is a statement of account issued by HDFC Bank. It has also been proved through PW9. Ext.X9 would show that as per request of PW2, Rs.30,00,000/- was transferred to account of appellant. PW8 is Manager, South Indian Bank, Chalai Branch. appellant maintained an account with said Bank. Ext.X7 is statement of account of appellant maintained at South Indian Bank, Chalai Branch. evidence of PW8 coupled with Ext.X7 statement of account would show that Rs.30,00,000/- was deposited in account of appellant as transferred from account of PW2. Thus, from above evidence, it stands proved that PW2 and his wife had availed a loan of Rs.30,00,000/- and paid it to appellant. As stated already, case set up by appellant is that said amount was deposited in his account for business development of M/s Pankaj Builders. If actually said amount was meant for business development of M/s Pankaj Builders, it ought not have been transferred to business account of appellant which has no connection whatsoever with M/s Pankaj Builders. appellant has also admitted that he had remitted interest for said amount for a period of 9 months from 1/8/2012 to 5/4/2013. If actually said amount was meant for business development of M/s Pankaj Builders, it ought not have been transferred to business account of appellant which has no connection whatsoever with M/s Pankaj Builders. appellant has also admitted that he had remitted interest for said amount for a period of 9 months from 1/8/2012 to 5/4/2013. If amount was actually paid for upliftment of business of M/s Pankaj Builders, there was absolutely no need for appellant to pay interest out of his profit. statement of accounts produced would further show that immediately after credit of Rs.30,00,000/- in his account, appellant paid Rs.7,92,000/- to one Smt. Radha on 24/7/2012 and another sum of Rs.9,50,056/- to one Smt. Sonia on 25/7/2012. appellant has no case that those persons have any connection with business of M/s.Pankaj Builders. Though appellant has raised a contention that above said amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was used for development of business of M/s Pankaj Builders, no evidence has been adduced to substantiate same. learned counsel for appellant relying on Ext.B8 series, copies of emails sent between PW2 and appellant, submitted that those documents would show that appellant was actively involved in business of M/s Pankaj Builders whereas respondent stated in evidence that appellant was not at all involved in said business and hence evidence given by respondent with regard to transaction relating to Rs.30,00,000/- cannot be believed. It is true that evidence on record would show that appellant was involved in business of Pankaj Builders. However, evidence on record clearly establish that Rs.30,00,000/- was collected by him from father of respondent not for business purpose of Pankaj Builders. definite case of respondent is that her father paid Rs.30,00,000/- to appellant to secure her life. Hence, as rightly held by court below, respondent is entitled to get back said amount as well. 13. On re-appreciation of entire evidence, we are of view that court below was absolutely justified in granting a decree for return of gold ornaments and money of Rs.80,00,000/- in OP No.898/2013. said judgment is only to be confirmed. We do so. 14. wife filed petition for dissolution of marriage on ground of cruelty and husband filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Normally, matrimonial cruelty takes place within four walls of matrimonial home and, therefore, independent witness may not be available. Thus, court can act upon sole testimony of spouse if it is found convincing and reliable. We do so. 14. wife filed petition for dissolution of marriage on ground of cruelty and husband filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Normally, matrimonial cruelty takes place within four walls of matrimonial home and, therefore, independent witness may not be available. Thus, court can act upon sole testimony of spouse if it is found convincing and reliable. court has to decide case based on preponderance of probabilities. We have already found that appellant has extracted 213 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.80,00,000/- from respondent and her father by exerting pressure on her. It has come out in evidence that appellant was only interested in money and failed to discharge his marital obligations. This act of appellant alone is sufficient to constitute mental cruelty. demand for gold ornaments and money has to be viewed in background of fact that appellant never cared to provide love and care to respondent. respondent has given positive evidence that constant harassment on part of appellant demanding gold ornaments and money has caused much mental agony and pain to her. Division Bench of this Court recently in Xxx v. Xxx ( 2021 (4) KHC 457 ) has held that insatiable urge for wealth and sex of a spouse would amount to cruelty. various acts of cruelty, both physical and mental, as well as harassment meted out by respondent at hands of appellant have been spoken to in detail by respondent as well as her father. There is nothing to disbelieve said evidence. It has also come out in evidence that appellant has caused innumerable mental stress and pain by constantly demanding dowry, sharing abusive words and filthy language towards her and also casting aspersions of inchastity. respondent specifically deposed that on many occasions, appellant asked her whether she used to share her bed with others. She has also deposed that appellant was not interested in sex and never wanted to be with her. Constant picking up of quarrel by mother of appellant was also spoken to by respondent. She asserted that apathy and indifferent conduct of appellant made her completely distressed. It is settled that physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty. To constitute cruelty, conduct and behaviour of one spouse towards other need only be of such a nature that it causes reasonable apprehension in mind of latter that it is not safe for him/her to continue marital tie. It is settled that physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty. To constitute cruelty, conduct and behaviour of one spouse towards other need only be of such a nature that it causes reasonable apprehension in mind of latter that it is not safe for him/her to continue marital tie. From kind of attitude, conduct and treatment discussed above, it can readily be inferred that respondent had every reason to apprehend that it was not safe for her to continue marital relationship with appellant. Hence, we confirm decree of dissolution of divorce granted by court below on ground of cruelty in OP No.897/2013 and dismissal of petition for restitution of conjugal rights in OP No.756/2013. In light of above findings, we see no merit in appeals. Accordingly all appeals are dismissed. No costs.