JUDGMENT : P.Krishna Kumar, J. By the impugned common judgment, the Family Court, Ottappalam, disposed of three original petitions. Two of them were filed by the wife against the husband—one seeking the return of gold ornaments and money, and the other claiming past and future maintenance for herself and their child. The third petition, filed by the husband, was for a decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act . The learned Family Judge dismissed the wife's petition for the recovery of money and gold ornaments, and allowed the maintenance claim only insofar as it related to the child. The husband's divorce petition was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the respective adverse decrees, both the husband and wife have filed appeals challenging those parts of the judgment. 2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 1.05.2011 in accordance with Hindu rites, and a male child was later born to them. The wife claimed that, at the time of marriage, she received 51 sovereigns of gold ornaments from her parents. She alleged that, shortly after the marriage, 40½ sovereigns of those ornaments were entrusted to the husband and his parents, who subsequently misappropriated them for purchasing land in the husband's name. 3. The wife further alleged that she is unable to maintain herself and that the husband has neglected to provide for her and their minor child since 16.04.2014. Based on this, she claimed past and future maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month for herself and Rs.10,000/- per month for the child. She also asserted that the husband is employed abroad, earning a monthly salary of approximately Rs. 1,00,000/-. 4. The husband denied all the above allegations. He further filed a petition seeking divorce, alleging that the wife began exhibiting erratic behaviour soon after she became pregnant. On one occasion, she allegedly threw stones at his mother. He further contended that she frequently quarrelled with him over trivial matters and had even threatened to commit suicide by jumping from the upper floor of their residence when they were residing abroad. After the child’s birth, the wife allegedly refused to return to the matrimonial home. According to the husband, any possibility of reunion is now foreclosed, as the wife has consistently behaved in a cruel manner, resulting in an irretrievable breakdown of their marital relationship. 5. After the child’s birth, the wife allegedly refused to return to the matrimonial home. According to the husband, any possibility of reunion is now foreclosed, as the wife has consistently behaved in a cruel manner, resulting in an irretrievable breakdown of their marital relationship. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondent. 6. The first point for determination is whether the wife is entitled to recover gold ornaments and money from the husband and his parents. It is not in dispute that the wife was adorned with 51 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. Her assertion in this regard, made both in the petition and in her chief affidavit, remained unchallenged. In support of her claim, she also relied on Ext.A3, a purchase bill/estimate, and Ext.A4 series of photographs, which also substantiate her claim. 7. However, the allegation regarding the entrustment of the gold ornaments remains seriously disputed. When the wife deposed that 40 ½ sovereigns of gold ornaments were entrusted to the husband and his parents (the other respondents), the husband stoutly denied it. At the same time, the husband has made a significant admission while giving evidence. He said that the gold ornaments were once entrusted to him by the wife. His contention is that he returned all of them to her before he went abroad. He states as follows: In support of this claim, he produced Exts.B3 to B6 photographs allegedly taken at the time of his brother’s engagement. These photographs show the wife wearing a thick, long gold chain along with a few other chains and bangles that also appear in the photographs taken at the time of wedding. However, these photographs are insufficient to prove that the wife got back the entire set of gold ornaments that had admittedly been entrusted to the husband. Once the husband admits of having had custody of the ornaments and then asserts that he returned them, the burden clearly shifts to him to convincingly establish that claim. 8. Having carefully appreciated the oral evidence of PW1 and RW1, along with the photographs produced by both sides, we are of the view that a substantial portion of the gold ornaments entrusted to the husband were not returned to the wife. That said, we are not inclined to accept the wife’s version in its entirety. 8. Having carefully appreciated the oral evidence of PW1 and RW1, along with the photographs produced by both sides, we are of the view that a substantial portion of the gold ornaments entrusted to the husband were not returned to the wife. That said, we are not inclined to accept the wife’s version in its entirety. Her claim that 40½ sovereigns were retained by the husband appears to be exaggerated. Ext.B4 makes it evident that at least 25 sovereigns of the ornaments allegedly entrusted to the husband are still in her possession. She has no case that she re-entrusted them to the husband. 9. The learned Family Judge rejected the wife's claim on the ground that her case lacks consistency across various pleadings and in her cross-examination. The court noted contradictions in her statements: on one occasion, she claimed that the gold ornaments were taken by the husband and his parents; on another, she stated that only the husband had taken them. Further, in the maintenance petition, she alleged that the gold was sold by the husband and his parents to purchase property in the husband's name. Yet, during cross-examination, she admitted that she was not sure as to what happened to the gold ornaments. The court also found inconsistencies regarding the period of the alleged entrustment. In one instance, she claimed that the ornaments were taken before she left for abroad, while in cross-examination, she stated that the property was purchased after she returned from the Gulf. 10. We have carefully examined the evidence on record in order to evaluate the conflicting claims raised by both parties. Upon a comprehensive analysis of the pleadings and the deposition of the wife, who was examined as PW1, we find ourselves unable to concur with the view taken by the Family Court on this aspect. At first glance, certain inconsistencies may appear in the wife’s statements. However, a closer scrutiny reveals that she has been referring to the same transaction or incident, albeit in varying terms. Her consistent case throughout is that the gold ornaments were taken by her husband and his parents. In her cross-examination, she deposed as follows: When the wife’s version is considered in the context of the statements made in her various pleadings, we find no material inconsistency in her case. Her consistent case throughout is that the gold ornaments were taken by her husband and his parents. In her cross-examination, she deposed as follows: When the wife’s version is considered in the context of the statements made in her various pleadings, we find no material inconsistency in her case. She has been narrating the same incident throughout, with only slight variations regarding the specific role played by the husband and his parents. Moreover, she has reasonably explained the context in which such variations occurred. It is trite that a witness cannot be disbelieved merely on account of minor inconsistencies, especially in matrimonial matters. The duty of the court is to evaluate the evidence as a whole, rather than to adopt a fault- finding approach. Inconsistencies in immaterial aspects should not sway the assessment of credibility. 11. Accordingly, we hold that the respondents are liable to return the balance 15 ½ sovereigns of gold ornaments. In our view, the approach adopted by the Family Court was clearly flawed, as it failed to take into account the above material aspects in the evidence. Therefore, we conclude that the wife is entitled to recover 15½ sovereigns of gold ornaments, or their market value at the time of recovery. 12. The next issue to be considered is whether the husband is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of matrimonial cruelty. Both parties have levelled serious allegations and counter-allegations against each other, each asserting that the other has acted cruelly and irreparably damaged the solemn relationship. Despite being subjected to detailed cross-examination, the husband’s core contention, that the quarrelsome attitude of the wife had caused serious disruptions in their marital life, remained unshaken. He deposed that the wife frequently reacted disproportionately to minor issues, even going so far as to threaten suicide. On one occasion, she allegedly threw stones at her mother-in-law. 13. Having considered the evidence on record, we find substantial merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the husband that a peaceful and meaningful marital life between the parties has become practically impossible. In such circumstances, compelling the husband to remain in this strained relationship would itself amount to further mental cruelty. 13. Having considered the evidence on record, we find substantial merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the husband that a peaceful and meaningful marital life between the parties has become practically impossible. In such circumstances, compelling the husband to remain in this strained relationship would itself amount to further mental cruelty. Upon evaluating his testimony alongside the evidence of RW1 and RW2, we are persuaded to hold that the husband has successfully established his claim for divorce on the ground of matrimonial cruelty under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act . 14. Apart from the above, it is also undisputed that the parties have been living separately at least since 16.04.2014. Although the wife has opposed the petition for divorce, she has not chosen to file any petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Despite various efforts, including mediation and conciliation, the relationship failed to improve. The prolonged separation, coupled with the unending discord and the hostile environment portrayed through the pleadings and testimony, clearly establishes that the marital bond has broken down irretrievably. The Apex Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [ (2007) 4 SCC 511 ] observed that the marriage becomes a fiction, though it is supported by a legal tie, when there is continuous separation and loss of essential bond between the couple. It was further held that, if there has been a long period of continuous separation, it is fair to conclude that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. 15. In Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan [2023 SCC OnLine SC 544], it has been held that where there is an irretrievable breakdown of marriage, then dissolution of marriage is the only solution. In Rajib Kumar vs. Sushmita Saha [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 727], the Apex Court held that keeping the parties together despite an irretrievable breakdown of marriage amounts to cruelty on both sides. Such a long separation without any intention to resume cohabitation amounts to cruelty to the spouse. After considering all the above aspects, we are of the view that the marriage between the parties could be dissolved on the said ground as well. 16. With respect to the challenge against the maintenance order passed by the learned Family Judge, we find no merit in the appeals filed by either party. After considering all the above aspects, we are of the view that the marriage between the parties could be dissolved on the said ground as well. 16. With respect to the challenge against the maintenance order passed by the learned Family Judge, we find no merit in the appeals filed by either party. The husband has failed to establish any sufficient ground to absolve himself of the obligation to maintain his minor son. It is not disputed that he is an able-bodied individual earning a reasonably substantial monthly income. We also find some merit in the trial court’s observation that the wife lived separately from the husband without sufficient reasonable cause. Although she alleged that she suffered cruelty at the hands of the husband and his parents, the materials on record do not fully substantiate those claims. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the Family Court's decision to deny her claim for past maintenance. We also find that the amount awarded as maintenance to the child is sufficient. 17. However, in light of our conclusion granting a decree of divorce in favour of the husband, the wife shall be entitled to get future maintenance. Considering the claim made by the husband that he is getting only Rs.30,000/- per month at the time of giving evidence in this case, we deem it appropriate to allow future maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month until she remarries. 18. In the result, Mat.Appeal No.672/2017 is partly allowed. The appellant is allowed to recover 15½ sovereigns of gold ornaments from the respondents or to recover its market value prevalent at the time of recovery, but without any interest on it. Mat.Appeal No.763/2017 is allowed. The marriage between the parties solemnised on 01.05.2011 will stand dissolved by a decree of divorce. Mat.Appeal No.671/2017 is partly allowed. The first appellant is entitled to get future maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- from the respondent/husband until she remarries and that all the immovable properties owned by the husband will be subject to a charge for the said amount. The Mat.Appeal No.667/2017 is dismissed, confirming the order of maintenance passed by the trial court.