JUDGMENT : Shoba Annamma Eapen, J. 1. The afore four appeals are filed by the husband challenging the common order dated 30.09.2014, in O.P.Nos. 182/2009, 1427/2008, 379/2012, 1090/2010 of Family Court, Ernakulam. 2. Mat. Appeal 99/2015 is filed against the dismissal of O.P. No.1090/2010 filed by the husband for declaring him as the legal guardian and to get permanent custody of the three minor children - Santra, Saira and Savio. 3. Mat. Appeal 102/2015 is filed challenging the order in O.P. No. 1427/2008 permitting the wife to recover 35,000/- and the value of 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the husband and all his assets both movable and immovable. A Cross Objection: 26/2025 in the above Mat.Appeal was filed by the wife stating that the family court ought to have ordered that if the quantified value of gold is not given within a reasonable time, the cross objector is entitled to realise the value of gold prevailing on the date of realisation of the amount. 4. Mat. Appeal 316/2015 is filed against the order in O.P. 379/2012 filed by the wife challenging the decree granting the petition for divorce. 5. Mat. Appeal 520/2015 is filed against the dismissal of O.P. No.182/2009 filed by the husband for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. 6. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as husband and wife. 7. When the case was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the husband submitted that all the three children have become major and Mat. Appeal 99 of 2015 filed by the husband for appointing him as the guardian of the children have become infructuous. 8. The marriage was solemnised on 14.05.1998. Thereafter, they lived together as husband and wife at the matrimonial home and from 31.08.2008 onwards, they are living separately. In the year 2008, the wife filed a petition for return of gold and money and thereafter in the year 2009, the husband filed O.P.No. 182/2009 seeking for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. 9. The wife alleges that an amount of 35,000/- was given to the husband as the share of the wife at the time of betrothal. Thereafter, 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to the petitioner in her marriage. Three children were born out of their wedlock; elder two are daughters and the younger one is a boy. 9. The wife alleges that an amount of 35,000/- was given to the husband as the share of the wife at the time of betrothal. Thereafter, 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to the petitioner in her marriage. Three children were born out of their wedlock; elder two are daughters and the younger one is a boy. The wife alleges that though during the initial days of marriage, the attitude and behaviour of the husband was loving and caring, gradually he began to ill-treat her at the matrimonial home. She was treated like a housemaid by the family members of the husband. The husband became a habitual drunkard, assaulted the wife without any reason. He, being a drunkard, had sold his three cars and a bus, which he had, at the time of marriage. Even the children were not taken care of by the husband. The parents of the wife purchased a property in her name and constructed a house. But, thereafter, at the instigation of the husband, she was forced to sell the property and a house was constructed in the property belonging to the husband using the said amount. Even after that, the attitude and behaviour of the husband towards the wife and children was intolerable. The wife claims that the husband misappropriated all the gold ornaments given to her at the time of marriage. He ought to have kept them as a trustee on behalf of the wife. The market value of gold ornaments will come to 1,50,000/- and 35,000/- was given on the day of betrothal as patrimony, thus the wife claimed a total amount of Rs.1,85,000/-. She also claimed the expenses spent for the engagement function Rs.50,000/- and the marriage function Rs. 1,00,000/-, an amount of 50,000/- was spent for purchase of household articles, thus totalling an amount of Rs. Rs.3,85,000/-. 10. Per contra, the husband denied the claim of 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments allegedly given to the wife. He also contended that the claim of patrimony as Rs.35,000/- is false. It is stated that the building was constructed in the property belonging to him by mortgaging the property. He also denied the allegation that the wife was tortured by the husband. He contended that the husband and family members are afraid of wife due to her abnormal behaviour on account of psychological issues. It is stated that the building was constructed in the property belonging to him by mortgaging the property. He also denied the allegation that the wife was tortured by the husband. He contended that the husband and family members are afraid of wife due to her abnormal behaviour on account of psychological issues. The husband stated that the wife was undergoing treatment for psychological issues even much before the marriage and the fact was conceded at the time of marriage. The husband and wife resided together in the matrimonial home only for a month and thereafter, they shifted their residence to a rented house. He also denied the allegation that he was a drunkard. Mediation took place only when the psychological issues of the wife got aggravated. She did not entrust any of the gold ornaments to the husband and there is no occasion for the husband to misappropriate the gold ornaments. He also denied the allegation that Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- were spent for the betrothal and marriage function. The Family Court, after elaborate consideration of the issue, granted recovery of Rs.35,000/- and value of 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the wife as on the date of judgment and also granted dissolution of marriage. Both the petitions for restitution of conjugal rights and for guardianship filed by the husband were dismissed. 11. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A7, B1 to B10, X1 and the depositions of PWs.1 and 2 and RWs.1 to 3. 12. We have heard Sri.Subal.J.Paul, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.A.C.Devy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 13. We shall first consider Mat.Appeal Nos.316 of 2015 and 520 of 2015 filed against the decree granting divorce and the dismissal of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The marriage in 1998 and the separation in 2008 are admitted. According to the wife, she was given by her parents an amount of Rs.35,000/- at the time of betrothal and 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. She claims that the gold ornaments and the money were entrusted to the husband and he has misappropriated the same for his own use. In order to support her claim, she relied on her own evidence as PW1 and of her mother who was examined as PW2. 14. She claims that the gold ornaments and the money were entrusted to the husband and he has misappropriated the same for his own use. In order to support her claim, she relied on her own evidence as PW1 and of her mother who was examined as PW2. 14. In para 2 of O.P.No.379/2012, the wife had alleged that there was disharmony in their marital life. The wife claimed that the husband ill-treated her and did not take care of the children and hence, her life with the husband became miserable. Wife claims divorce on the grounds of cruelty. The husband was a KSRTC driver at the time of marriage. The wife was subjected to severe mental and physical harassment. During examination, the wife narrated a series of events that took place in her marital life. She also alleged cruelty from the family members of the husband. She alleges that she was treated like a housemaid. The husband, being a spendthrift and drunkard, had misappropriated her gold ornaments as well as the money given by her parents. During examination, the wife has stated that she was sexually harassed by her husband. She was compelled to do oral sex and often resorted to carnal intercourse. The cruelties explained by the wife could not be shaken in the cross-examination. Moreover, the wife alleged that due to the ill-treatment and cruelty of the husband, she had to undergo treatment by a Psychiatrist. RW2 was examined to prove these aspects. Ext.X1 was marked through RW2. On a perusal of the deposition of RW2 as well as Ext.X1, it reveals that the wife was subjected to treatment for psychiatric ailment. According to Doctor- RW2, symptoms of ailment shown by the wife may be due to the ill-treatment and humiliation made by the family members of the husband. On a perusal of Ext.X1, it is seen that she was having some psychological issues. Though there was a contention by the husband that she was having psychological issues even before marriage, no evidence was adduced to prove the same. Hence, on the basis of the evidence adduced and Ext.X1, it is seen that due to the ill-treatment and cruelty shown by the husband and his family members in the matrimonial home, she was having some issues and it has to be presumed that it happened only due to the disharmony in her family life. 15. Hence, on the basis of the evidence adduced and Ext.X1, it is seen that due to the ill-treatment and cruelty shown by the husband and his family members in the matrimonial home, she was having some issues and it has to be presumed that it happened only due to the disharmony in her family life. 15. The Family Court, after elaborate appreciation of the evidence adduced, has come to the conclusion that the wife was subjected to cruelty and the husband was a chronic alcoholic and had developed the character of a lunatic and due to his callous attitude, indifferent nature, cruel behaviour and drunken habit, the marital relationship has been irretrievably broken down. Thus the Family Court allowed dissolution of marriage. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 16. The next issue is regarding the decree for return of the value of 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments and an amount of Rs.35,000/-. In paragraph (1) of the original petition, the wife claims that she was given 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage and Rs.35,000/- as patrimony at the time of betrothal. In paragraph (8) of the petition, she alleges that the husband, instead of keeping the gold ornaments and money as a trustee, has misappropriated it for his own use. The details of the gold ornaments are listed out in the original petition as follows: 1. Long Chain 4 sovereigns 2. Necklace 1 sovereign 3. Bangles (12 Nos.) 1¼ sovereign each 4. Show Chain 3 sovereigns 5. Dimples Chain 3 sovereigns 6. Bangles (2 Nos.) 2 sovereigns each Total 30 sovereigns 17. The wife relied on Exts.A1 and A2 series photographs taken at the time of marriage and betrothal and Exts.A3 to A7 documents and her own deposition and the deposition of her mother. 18. Per contra, the husband in paragraph 8 of the objection had denied the entrustment of gold ornaments and Rs.35,000/- and the misappropriation alleged. The husband further contended that he was not aware whether the ornaments worn by the wife were gold or not and he did not know the actual weight of the gold ornaments. The Family Court allowed the petition and granted recovery of Rs.35,000/- and value of 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments. 19. The husband further contended that he was not aware whether the ornaments worn by the wife were gold or not and he did not know the actual weight of the gold ornaments. The Family Court allowed the petition and granted recovery of Rs.35,000/- and value of 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments. 19. The learned counsel for the husband, Sri.Subal.J.paul, raised arguments mainly on three points: 1) No pleading regarding the source of the wife’s family to give the money and gold as alleged. 2) No pleading regarding entrustment of money and gold ornaments. 3) Entire probabilities are in favour of the husband. 20. The learned counsel drew our attention to the prayer in the original petition filed by the wife in O.P.No.1427/08 and argued that the prayer is only for return of an amount of Rs.3,85,000/- which includesRs. 1,50,000/- value of gold ornaments and the money entrusted Rs.35,000/-. The prayer for realisation of costs of articles and the amount spent for betrothal and marriage were declined by the Family Court. The Court granted a decree for realisation of the value of 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments as on the date of judgment. He argues that, since the prayer is only for payment of Rs.1,85,000/- towards the value of gold ornaments and money, the decree passed by the family court to realise the value of 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments is not justified. 21. The prayer in the original petition is as follows: “Pass a decree allowing the petitioner to realise an amount of Rs.3,85,000/- with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respondent and his assets.” Out of Rs.3,85,000/- claimed, an amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- is towards the value of gold ornaments claimed and the money entrusted namely, Rs.35,000/-. The remaining Rs.2,00,000/- is towards the value of articles alleged to be given and the amount spent for betrothal and marriage. The prayer in the original petition was very specific. The family court declined the prayer for the value of articles and the amount spent for betrothal and marriage against which there is no appeal by the wife. We find that the Family Court has granted a decree that was not sought in the original petition. 22. The prayer in the original petition was very specific. The family court declined the prayer for the value of articles and the amount spent for betrothal and marriage against which there is no appeal by the wife. We find that the Family Court has granted a decree that was not sought in the original petition. 22. As regards the quantity of gold ornaments, the wife claims that some gold ornaments were purchased in the year 1993 when she was studying in 10th standard and the remaining ornaments were purchased at the time of marriage. During cross-examination, she has testified that the husband was aware of the gold ornaments and he has sold the ornaments for his own use. She further testified that at the time when she returned to her parental home, she did not have even one gram of gold. In order to prove the said allegation, no evidence is adduced other than her interested testimony. Her mother, while examined as PW2, has testified that in 1993 she received amounts from the railway towards the acquisition of the property and for the entire amount, gold ornaments were purchased. However, no evidence has been adduced to substantiate the afore claim other than Ext.A3 pass book. The mother further testified that in 1993, she purchased land and house by spending Rs.3,00,000/- for which she relied on Exts.A5 to A7 documents relating to land acquisition compensation which are of the years 1983, 1987 and 1990. She also testified that even after 1993, she received amounts from the railway, no documents were produced to prove the same. The mother deposed that her brother and sister, who were in Germany and England, used to help her. 23. The husband, while examined as RW1, denied the misappropriation and entrustment of gold ornaments and money. He further contended that there was no surplus fund for the wife’s family to purchase gold as claimed. He further contended that no proof was produced to substantiate the claim that amounts were received from the relatives of the mother of the wife as claimed by them. The husband argued that on a perusal of Exts.A4 and A5, no surplus funds were available for the wife’s family to give 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments during the time of marriage. The husband argued that on a perusal of Exts.A4 and A5, no surplus funds were available for the wife’s family to give 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments during the time of marriage. Further, it was contended that no proof was produced to substantiate the claim that some gold ornaments were purchased in 1993, when the wife was studying in 10th standard. 24. However, there is no contention that the wife did not adorn any gold ornaments at all during marriage. The husband contended that some of the gold ornaments worn by the wife was not gold, but no evidence has been adduced to substantiate the same. The photographs produced as Exts.A1 and A2 series reveal that the wife had worn gold ornaments during betrothal and marriage. The wife has examined her mother and she has also testified that her daughter was given 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The husband did not examine anybody from his family to disprove the claim regarding the gold ornaments. While Exts.A3 and A4 documents are not sufficient enough to prove the purchase of 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments, the evidence on record probabilises that the wife was given gold ornaments at the time of marriage. As held by this Court in Pankajakshan Nair v. Shylaja & Ors., [ 2017 (1) KHC 620 ], when the husband and wife live together, it is only probable that the valuables of the wife will be entrusted to the husband for safe custody, and when the plea of the husband is that the wife took back the gold ornaments, it is for the husband to prove the same. Considering the documents produced, the evidence adduced and the financial capacity of the family of the wife, we hold that she had 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage and the husband had misappropriated the same. 25. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent- wife submitted that, in the original petition the wife had filed an Interlocutory Application No.3264 of 2011 for amendment of the total market value of the 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments purchased from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-. No orders are seen passed in the above IA by the Family Court. The application ought to have been allowed by the court in view of the rise in gold prices. No orders are seen passed in the above IA by the Family Court. The application ought to have been allowed by the court in view of the rise in gold prices. We are inclined to allow the prayer for amendment of the total value of the gold ornaments as Rs.3,00,000/-. Accordingly, the I.A. No.3264 of. 26. Since we have found that the petitioner was having 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments, in proportion to the claim made in the original petition, she is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the husband. The prayer in the cross objection was for realisation of the value of gold prevailing on the date of realisation of the amount. The cross objection was filed by the wife along with a petition to condone the delay of 3557 days. The said delay petition was dismissed vide separate order. 27. As regards the claim for the amount of Rs.35,000/-, the wife has relied on Exts.A1 series photographs, A3 and A4 documents. She had sworn to in the affidavit that her parents had given an amount of Rs.35,000/- at the time of betrothal and her uncle had given the amount to the husband, which is seen in Ext.A1 series photographs. Though the receipt of the amount was denied by the husband, he has not stated as to what was handed over to him, as seen in the Ext.A1 series photographs. The mother has also testified that Rs. 35,000/- was given to the son-in-law by her brother. Ext.A4 passbook reveals that an amount of Rs.35,800/- was withdrawn from wife’s mother’s account, which probabilise the case of the wife that, her parents had given an amount of Rs.35,000/- to her as patrimony at the time of her betrothal, she being the only daughter. Moreover, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 corroborates the claim regarding the payment of patrimony. Though the receipt of the amount was denied by the husband, the circumstances and the evidence clearly prove that the husband was given Rs.35,000/- as patrimony. We hold that the husband is liable to return the same. Further, in the light of the dismissal of the petition for condonation of delay, the cross objection is also dismissed. 28. Accordingly, Mat.Appeal Nos. 99 of 2015, 316 of 2015, 520 of 2015 and C.O.No.26/2025 in Mat.A.No.102 of 2015 are dismissed. Mat.Appeal No.102 of 2015 is partly allowed. We hold that the husband is liable to return the same. Further, in the light of the dismissal of the petition for condonation of delay, the cross objection is also dismissed. 28. Accordingly, Mat.Appeal Nos. 99 of 2015, 316 of 2015, 520 of 2015 and C.O.No.26/2025 in Mat.A.No.102 of 2015 are dismissed. Mat.Appeal No.102 of 2015 is partly allowed. The decree and judgment of the Family Court, Ernakulam in O.P.No.1427 of 2008 will stand modified granting the wife a decree for realisation of an amount of Rs.1,85,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the appellant/husband and from all his assets both movable and immovable. No costs.