JUDGMENT : SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J 1. Mat. Appeal Nos. 560 of 2013 and 620 of 2014 arise from the common judgment dated 15.06.2013, in O.P.Nos.1513 of 2010 and 1512 of 2010 passed by the Family Court, Kottayam. Mat.Appeal No.296 of 2018 arises from the order dated 07.08.2017, in O.P.No.210 of 2014 passed by the Family Court, Pala. Since the parties are the same and the issues involved are interconnected, the above Matrimonial Appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Mat. Appeal No. 560 of 2013 is filed by the wife challenging the judgment passed in O.P.No.1513 of 2010 for recovery of gold ornaments and money. 3. Mat. Appeal No.620 of 2014 is filed by the husband challenging the judgment in O.P.No.1512 of 2010 against the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, Kottayam. 4. Mat. Appeal No.296 of 2018 is filed by the wife challenging the order in O.P.No.210 of 2014, dismissing her prayers for compensation and past maintenance. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as 'husband' and 'wife'. 6. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The marriage between the husband and the wife was solemnized on 12.01.2002, and a son was born in the wedlock in the year 2004 who suffers from serious physical deformities, which was admitted by both the parties. Their relationship got strained and they were living separately from 26.10.2010 onwards. She is not intending to continue her conjugal relationship. The wife claimed that she was given Rs. 20 Lakhs in cash at the time of betrothal and 100 sovereigns of gold, including gold coins at the time of marriage, by her father. She further claimed that another amount of Rs. 5 Lakh was borrowed by the husband from the wife's father. 7. In Mat. Appeal Nos.560 of 2013 and 620 of 2014, evidence consists of Exts.A1 to A17 on the side of the wife, Ext.B1 on the side of the husband and Ext.X1 as witness exhibit. PWs 1 to 5 and RW1 were examined before the Family Court. In Mat. Appeal No.296 of 2018, Exts.A1 to A7 on the side of the wife. PWs 1 to 4 were examined on the side of the wife and DW1 was examined on the side of the husband. No documentary evidence was adduced by the husband. 8. PWs 1 to 5 and RW1 were examined before the Family Court. In Mat. Appeal No.296 of 2018, Exts.A1 to A7 on the side of the wife. PWs 1 to 4 were examined on the side of the wife and DW1 was examined on the side of the husband. No documentary evidence was adduced by the husband. 8. We have heard Smt.Kavery S.Thampi, the learned counsel appearing for the wife and Sri.Grashious Kuriakose, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the husband assisted by Sri.George Mathews. 9. Firstly, we consider Mat.Appeal No.620 of 2014 filed by the husband against the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court. According to the wife, her matrimonial life was miserable since the husband was a drunkard. He ill-treated her physically as well as mentally. She claimed that the husband was having mental disorder and he was taking treatment from T.T.K. Hospital, Chennai. He was also incapable of performing sexual activities due to the intake of strong medicines. 10. The husband contends that when a child was born with physical deformities, the wife used to abuse him and it was her misbehaviour that led to the husband becoming an alcoholic, which made him get admitted in T.T.K. Hospital, Chennai for treatment. 11. During cross-examination, PW1 had stated that due to the alcoholic nature of the husband, she had suffered both mental and physical cruelties. She has also testified that he was treated in T.T.K. Hospital, Chennai for de-addiction treatment. Her evidence was supported by her father, PW2 and her brother, PW3. PW4 was the mediator, who interfered to settle the issues between the husband and wife; and PW5 was the doctor, who had examined the husband and issued Ext.X1 certificate. The doctor had deposed that he had undergone treatment due to alcoholism and he was under treatment with strong medications. A perusal of Ext.X1 certificate reveals that he was having some behavioural problem and alcoholic dependency. Other than the oral evidence of the husband, he did not examine any family member to prove his case. 12. It was the wife's case that the mother was aware of the sickness of the husband, but the husband did not care to examine his mother. The learned counsel for the wife relied on the Judgment in Dr. Nirmal Singh Panesar V. Paramjit Kaur Panesar [ 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1297 ]. 13. 12. It was the wife's case that the mother was aware of the sickness of the husband, but the husband did not care to examine his mother. The learned counsel for the wife relied on the Judgment in Dr. Nirmal Singh Panesar V. Paramjit Kaur Panesar [ 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1297 ]. 13. In Rakesh Raman v. Kavita [ 2023 SCC OnLine SC 497 ], it has been held that though in a given case, cruelty as a fault may not be attributable to one party alone and hence, despite irretrievable breakdown of marriage, keeping the parties together amounts to cruelty on both sides. Similarly, in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan [ 2023 SCC OnLine SC 544 ], it has been held that where there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage, then, dissolution of marriage is the only solution. In a recent decision of the apex court in Rajib Kumar Roy vs. Sushmita Saha ( Civil Appeal No. 5454 of 2023 ) [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 727], it has been held that keeping the parties together despite irretrievable breakdown of marriage amounts to cruelty on both sides. It was further held therein that continued bitterness, dead emotions and long separation, in the given facts and circumstances of a case, can be construed as a case of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” and when there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage, then, dissolution of marriage is the only solution. 14. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances and the documents and evidence adduced in this case, it could be seen that the matrimonial life of the wife was miserable, since the husband was a drunkard and of irritable nature. From the evidence adduced, it is seen that he used to abuse her in filthy language and refused sex. Moreover, the husband himself has admitted in the deposition that he is a drunkard and he was taken for de-addiction treatment. The husband, however, is not ready to give up his habit of drinking in order to lead a happy life. She had returned to her paternal house on 26.10.2010, due to the fear of her life. There is no case that there was any cohabitation after the afore date. 15. Accordingly, we find that the Family Court has correctly granted divorce and hence, we decline interference with the same. Mat.Appeal NO.560/2013 16. She had returned to her paternal house on 26.10.2010, due to the fear of her life. There is no case that there was any cohabitation after the afore date. 15. Accordingly, we find that the Family Court has correctly granted divorce and hence, we decline interference with the same. Mat.Appeal NO.560/2013 16. This appeal is filed by the wife regarding the recovery of gold ornaments and money. According to the wife, as demanded by respondents 2 and 3 - the parents of the husband, the father of the wife gave her 100 sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage, out of which, 78 sovereigns were gold ornaments and 22 sovereigns were gold coins of one sovereign each. She also claimed that a sum of Rs.20 lakh was entrusted to the second respondent-father of the husband, which was arranged after taking loans from different banks. Though she was having 78 sovereigns of gold ornaments, as she was not interested in wearing too much gold, she wore only a necklace weighing 12 sovereigns, bangles and a pair of earrings at the time of marriage. The wife further alleged that the husband had borrowed an amount of Rs.15 lakh from the wife’s father on 05.12.2008, out of which, Rs.10 lakh was repaid and Rs.5 lakh is still outstanding. The husband entrusted the wife with only 6 sovereigns of gold ornaments for daily use and the remaining 94 sovereigns of gold ornaments were taken by the first respondent, alleging to keep in safe custody. During cross-examination, the wife testified that 94 sovereigns of gold ornaments were entrusted with the husband on his demand to keep it in safe custody. 17. Regarding the entrustment of Rs.20 Lakh in the original petition, the wife has alleged that it was arranged after availing loans as well as an advance amount of property proposed for sale. During cross- examination, the wife had testified that an amount of Rs.20 lakh was given to her by selling a property belonging to her father. However, no documents have been adduced to prove the sale of the property. She also testified that the gold was purchased from Ernakulam – Alappat and Bhima Jewellery for an amount of Rs.5 Lakh. She further testified that the bills for purchase of the gold ornaments were with the husband, which was entrusted by her father to the husband. However, no documents have been adduced to prove the sale of the property. She also testified that the gold was purchased from Ernakulam – Alappat and Bhima Jewellery for an amount of Rs.5 Lakh. She further testified that the bills for purchase of the gold ornaments were with the husband, which was entrusted by her father to the husband. During cross-examination of PW2, the wife’s father, a question was posed regarding the entrustment of the bills for purchase of the jewellery. He did not testify that the bills were given to the husband. On the other hand, he had deposed that he gave 100 sovereigns to her daughter, including coins, but he was unable to give the exact number of gold coins. The father has also testified in tune with the deposition of his daughter that the gold was purchased from Ernakulam – Alappat and Bhima jewellery. He further deposed that a sum of Rs.20 lakh was given as patrimony to his daughter by selling his property worth Rs.62 Lakh. The brother, examined as PW3, testified that the money for purchasing the gold ornaments was raised by cutting and selling the timber logs in their premises. From the evidence adduced and the depositions of the wife and her family members, there is no conclusive proof to support the claim that 100 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to the wife at the time of marriage. 18. The husband, while examined as RW1, submitted that there was no case for the wife that the gold ornaments were kept in the locker. Further, the husband alleged that though there was no case for the wife in the petition that the gold ornaments were pledged, during cross-examination she testified that the gold ornaments were pledged by the husband. He further alleged that at the time of marriage, it was told by the wife and parents that she was a postgraduate, but during cross-examination, she had admitted that she had completed the course, but not passed M.A. Hence, the husband alleged that she is not trustworthy and her evidence cannot be relied upon. Regarding the purchase of the gold ornaments also, the husband alleged that there is a disparity between the evidence of the father and the brother, which is crucial and cuts to the root of the claim of the wife. Regarding the purchase of the gold ornaments also, the husband alleged that there is a disparity between the evidence of the father and the brother, which is crucial and cuts to the root of the claim of the wife. The husband also pointed out that regarding the entrustment of the bills for the purchase of gold ornaments, the wife testified that the bills were handed over to the husband by the father, but during cross-examination, the father did not depose that the bills were given to his son-in-law. 19. Upon careful examination of the entire evidence and records and the documents produced, it is seen that both families enjoyed a comfortable status. Considering their affluent backgrounds, it is likely that the wife’s parents would have given a substantial quantity of gold ornaments to their daughter on the occasion of her marriage. The photographs produced as Ext.A3 series show that the wife was wearing relatively modest jewellery as she was not interested in wearing too much gold ornaments. On a perusal of all the photographs produced, it can be seen that she has worn different jewellery on different occasions. However, she adorned herself with a substantial number of bangles at the time of marriage. On 26.10.2010, she was taken to her parental home by her father and brother. It cannot be assumed that while leaving her matrimonial home on 26.10.2010, she had taken all the gold ornaments that were given to her. 20. 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. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in Pankajakshan Nair (supra). Hence, it has to be presumed that the husband was entrusted with gold ornaments. 21. On a consideration of the entire evidence and the available records and the financial status of the parties, we find that she might have been given 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It is admitted that she had 6 sovereigns of gold ornaments for her daily use. 21. On a consideration of the entire evidence and the available records and the financial status of the parties, we find that she might have been given 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It is admitted that she had 6 sovereigns of gold ornaments for her daily use. However, considering the entire evidence, we find that she might have been in possession of ten sovereigns of gold ornaments for her daily use, when she left the matrimonial home. Thus, we find that the husband is liable to return 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the wife. 22. As regards the entrustment of Rs.20,00,000/-, no satisfactory evidence has been adduced by the wife, other than producing certain documents to show that her father had availed several loans during the period much prior to the date of marriage. However, the Family Court, after elaborate consideration of evidence, has found that the petitioner was given patrimony of Rs.5,00,000/- and the husband was entrusted with Rs.5,00,000/-. We agree with the finding of the Family Court that Rs.5,00,000/- was given as patrimony to the wife. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decree regarding the money entrusted to the respondents by the wife’s father. Mat.Appeal No.296/2018 23. This appeal is filed by the wife challenging the order dated 07.08.2017 in O.P.No.210 of 2014 for compensation and past maintenance. The wife has claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month from 17.05.2011. Admittedly, they were living separately from 26.10.2010. The petition for past maintenance was filed in the year 2014. At the time of filing the petition, the wife had remarried and her husband was working in Singapore. In paragraph 10 of the original petition, she had claimed that she is entitled to realise past maintenance at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month from the husband, from 17.05.2011, till the date of filing the original petition, i.e., on 15.05.2014. She claimed that she suffered heavy loss and damages and her right to lead a normal life with husband and children shattered due to the husband’s illness. The wife claimed that the husband is immensely rich and he was doing real estate business and sale of flats and villas. She further submitted that she is working in Potta retreat centre and is earning only an amount of Rs.5,000/-towards the monthly income. The wife claimed that the husband is immensely rich and he was doing real estate business and sale of flats and villas. She further submitted that she is working in Potta retreat centre and is earning only an amount of Rs.5,000/-towards the monthly income. In the objection filed by the husband, he has stated that the wife remarried and he contended that in the earlier petition for maintenance filed by the wife, she had admitted that she was getting Rs.7,000/- as the monthly income. It is further contended that the wife moved for divorce, which the husband objected to. It was the wife, who abandoned the husband and the child, at her will and pleasure and hence, he is not liable to pay any amount towards maintenance. 24. The wife was examined as PW1. During cross-examination, she has stated that at the time of filing the original petition, she had remarried and her husband’s name is Eldho and is living a happy life. She has further stated that she used to get an amount of Rs.5,000 - Rs. 7,000 as salary while she was working in Chalakudy Divine Centre and also deposed that the husband is wealthy enough to give her past maintenance. 25. Regarding past maintenance, the wife has not deposed that she was not able to maintain herself after she left the matrimonial home. It is an admitted fact that she went to her parental home on 26.10.2010, and the original petition for past maintenance was filed by the wife on 15.05.2014. The long delay in claiming past maintenance implies that she was able to maintain herself. The Family Court dismissed the original petition stating that the claim was beyond the period of three years from the date of arising of the cause of action, which is on 26.10.2010. However, we are not inclined to accept the said finding of the Family court. The claim for the amounts due within three years cannot at any rate be time barred. But considering the evidence adduced and the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, we hold that the wife is not entitled for past maintenance. 26. As regards the claim for compensation by the wife, she has not adduced any satisfactory evidence to prove damages. It is an admitted fact that they were living separately from 26.10.2010. The Divorce OP was filed in 2010. 26. As regards the claim for compensation by the wife, she has not adduced any satisfactory evidence to prove damages. It is an admitted fact that they were living separately from 26.10.2010. The Divorce OP was filed in 2010. In the aforementioned petition she did not claim for compensation. Further even in the original petition for return of gold ornaments and money, she did not claim for any compensation. She claimed compensation on the ground that the respondent had spoiled her life by marrying her by concealing the fact of his mental illness. There is no evidence to find that the husband was suffering from mental illness. While filing divorce OP and petition for realisation of money, she had raised allegations that her marriage with the husband was on the basis of fraud. The marriage was dissolved on the ground of cruelty and not on fraud. The dissolution of marriage was on 15.06.2013. She ought to have raised any claim for damages in the earlier petitions. No new cause of action has arisen to file the original petition for compensation. Hence, as held by the Family Court, the present claim is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. That apart, when the claim is for compensation alleging fraud, the cause of action arises on detection of the fraud. Even the divorce petition on the said allegation was filed in the year 2010. The present original petition is filed only in the year 2014 and is hence barred by limitation. The claim was rightly rejected by the Family Court. Accordingly, Mat Appeal Nos. 620 of 2014 & 296 of 2018 are dismissed. Mat.Appeal No.560 of 2013 is partly allowed, the decree and judgment of the Family Court in O.P.No.1513 of 2010 will stand modified to the extent that the wife is granted a decree for realisation of the present market value of 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the husband, his assets both movable and immovable. In all other respects, the decree and judgment of the Family Court will stand affirmed. No costs.