The judgment establishes the principle that irretrievable breakdown of marriage and mental cruelty can be grounds for divorce, as supported by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and Supreme Court decisions.

Chitra Venkataraman, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is by the respondent wife against the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, granting a decree for divorce under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. The respondent husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty and the attempts made to bring about a settlement and to restore matrimonial peace and bring about re-union yielded no fruitful result.

3. The allegations therein were denied by the appellant herein. She also filed a petition for maintenance in M.C.No.164 of 2005 seeking maintenance at Rs.5,000/- per month from the respondent herein from the date of the petition. By a common order dated 24th September 2007, while granting a decree of dissolution of marriage by divorce, the Family Court directed the respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance to the appellant herein from 30.3.2005.

4. Aggrieved of the said order, the wife has come on appeal questioning the correctness of the findings of the Family Court.

.5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, taking us through the evidence and the documents marked, pointed out that the Court below erred in holding that the respondent husband had proved desertion and cruelty by the appellant. Learned counsel further pointed out that the appellant suffered miscarriage on more than two occasions, only due to the mental and physical torture caused by the respondent herein. She further pointed out that the respondent suffered from abdominal tuberclosis and that the appellant suffered miscarriage only on this ground. The allegations against the appellant were totally false and that the appellant was driven out of the matrimonial home by the cruel behaviour of the respondent. She pointed out that the desertion was only by the respondent and not by the appellant wife. The appellant also alleged that the respondent had an illicit relationship with one Manjula and that the Court below erred in ignoring the evidence of her parents and brothers. She pointed out that the petition for divorce was only on account of his intention to marry the said Manjula.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant impressed on the fact that the appellant stood by the respondent when he underwent treatment and had spent her earnings for his treatment.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, relied on the findings of the Court below in support of his cause for divorce.

8. Considering the allegations herein, in order to strike an amicable settlement and to re-unite the parties, this Court directed the parties to appear before this Court to ascertain the desire of both the parties to restore matrimonial peace. Although the appellant expressed her eagerness to continue her matrimonial relationship with the respondent, the respondent expressed his inability to join back his wife. However, after hearing the parties for some time, this Court granted time on 12. 2007 for the parties to think about the pros and cons of their case and to come back with an amicable settlement for re-union. The matter was directed to be posted on 112. 2007. However, even today the respondent expressed his inability to continue his matrimonial relationship with the appellant and prayed for divorce. Considering the persistent attitude of the parties herein in not sorting out the differences and re-unite, there being no purpose of continuing this relationship with a gap between the parties and not capable of bridging, the appeal was taken up for hearing on merits.

9. Heard the counsel for both sides.

.10. It is seen that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 12. 1997 in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs. The parties herein were living with the respondents family members at Chennai. It is stated that from the beginning of the matrimonial life, the resp