Human problem can be resolved by adopting a human approach.

The unsuccessful appellant/husband who has lost his case before both the courts below has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal against the concurrent findings rejecting his case for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

2. The case in brief is as follows:

The petitioner and respondent are husband and wife. The marriage between them was performed on 30.04.1975 at Thimmarajapuram in Thirunelveli District according to Hindu rites and customs in the presence of the elders. After the marriage, they set up their family at Chengalpattu and thereafter at Chrompet as the petitioner is working at Madras. They lived happily till the birth of a female child on 18.02.1977 at Quilon in the residence of the respondents parents. The petitioner and the respondent are employed respectively, in Chengalpattu Medical College as Assistant and as Clerk in Chengalpattu Post Office. The respondent left the matrimonial home for the firs time on 23.03.1980, and from then onwards, the dispute started. Thereafter, the husband filed O.P.No.249 of 1980 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, for restitution of conjugal rights and obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Aggrieved over the same, the wife filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.8 of 1982 on the file of District Judge, Chengalpattu, who in turn, confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dismissing the appeal. The wife neither preferred second appeal nor did she join the husband.

3. Thereafter, on 011. 1982, the husband filed H.M.O.P.No.69 of 1982 for the relief of divorce on the ground of desertion of the respondent/wife irrespective of decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife appeared before Court and made an endorsement that she was willing to join with her husband and in view of the endorsement, the said petition for divorce was dismissed even at the first hearing date itself. Thereafter the parties set up the family at Ayanavaram and the second daughter was born to them. Subsequently, the parties shifted their residence to Madipakkam. Again, on 15.06.1990, the appellant/husband was driven out of matrimonial home and inspite of some elders tried to pacify them, the wife did not agree for re-union. Thereafter, the husband issued lawyers notice on 01.08.1990 stating the breaking away of marriage tie for which, the wife through her counsel sent a reply on 20.08.1990 seeking for maintenance for her daughters and also lodged a compliant to the Dowry Cell. The petitioner-husband issued rejoinder on 18.09.1980. On the filing of M.C.No:559 of 1992 by the respondent/wife, the Family Court at Madras ordered interim maintenance of Rs.350/- for each daughter. Thereafter the husband wrote several letters to the wife in order to maintain cordial relationship with him. But all his efforts ended in vain. Hence, the petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.95 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The wife contesting the same, filed her counter statement. Thereafter, the trial Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the divorce petition by judgment dated 30.07.1996 holding that there is no evidence to prove that the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty so as to offer him the relief of divorce. The trial court also held that the appellant has failed to prove the fact of desertion on the part of the respondent since both of them are living separately only due to their occupations at different places. Thereafter, the husband filed C.M.A.No.19 of 1997 before the District Judge, Chingleput, who in turn dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the order of the trial Court by judgment dated 212. 1997. Aggrieved over the said judgment, the husband has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal before this Court.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Though notice was served on the respondent, she has not chosen to appear either in person or through Counsel. Hence,