P.D. RAJAN, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment in O.P.No.89/2010 of the Family Court, Kasargod, which was filed u/s 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Appellant is the husband and respondent is the wife. The appellant married the respondent on 19.10.1997 as per Hindu customary rites and a female child was born to them. He is a graduate employed in a Service Co-operative Bank. Before the marriage, the respondent informed that she is a graduate in Commerce, but after the marriage, when a suggestion was made to join HDC course, she stated that she did not complete her B.Com course. After this, she began to pick up quarrels with the appellant and his aged parents and their marital relationship became disrupted.

2 Now he is residing in his house with his father following his mother’s death and the respondent wanted to avoid the company of the appellant. She even made complaint to the police and the police warned her not to repeat the habit of complaining for silly matters in the family life. Since 20.5.2008 the respondent started residing separately in a rental house. On 13.4.2009, in a mediation talk, they decided to dissolve the marital tie by filing a joint petition. Accordingly, a joint application was filed, but the respondent repeatedly absent and consequently that was dismissed on 31.12.2009. The cruel treatment by the respondent is very grave, which is something more serious than the ordinary wear and tear of married life.

2. The respondent wife, denied the allegation of cruelty and desertion from her side and contended that after the birth of the child, the appellant started finding fault with the respondent for not having bachelor degree, besides this, he demanded that the respondent should be employed immediately. The appellant harassed her both physically and mentally for not bringing dowry and on different occasions, her father and relatives gave Rs.3 lakhs to him. During 2003-2004, the appellant started construction of a residential house for which also he demanded money from her and took her ornaments. When she was pregnant the second child, due to the mental and physical torture of the appellant, the pregnancy got aborted. On 27.2.2009, the respondent was asked to get out of the house and she decided to leave the matrimonial house. The appellant obstructed to take the child and informed the school authorities not to issue transfer certificate. In that situation, the respondent was forced to sign an agreement for filing joint application. The appellant and his henchmen insisted that the cash and gold ornaments received from the respondent’s parents will have to be given up in order to leave her native place with the child. Since the appellant threatened that she will not be allowed to leave Kanhangad, unless divorce is granted, the respondent had to take a rental house for staying with the child from March 2009. The appellant has not bothered to look after the respondent and her child from March 2009. The respondent is even now ready and willing to join the appellant as a dutiful wife. Even before obtaining divorce, the appellant has put his profile in a matrimonial website for a second marriage.

3. The learned Judge of the Family Court examined petitioner and his witness as PWs 1 and 2 and marked his documents as Exts.A1 to A6. The respondent was examined as RW1 and her documents were marked as Exts.B1 to B5. The court below dismissed the petition filed by the appellant. Hence, this appeal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the marital relationship between the parties has been broken irretrievably and refusal to grant relief would only augment miseries of both parties. The trial judge noticed Ext.A1 agreement and terms of agreement entered by both of them. The factum of filing joint petition was in furtherance of Ext.A1 and departure from the conditions mentioned in Ext.A1 would cause irreparable injuries to the parties. The allegation proved in the