Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K.S. Elangovan for M/s Achari & Antorny Associates.
For the Respondent:K.S. Karthick Raja for T.R.Rajaraman, Advocates.

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The marriage was solemnized on 2nd 1997, and the appellant filed a petition for divorce primarily on the grounds of premarital sex, premarital pregnancy, and desertion. However, the court found that the petition was primarily based on allegations of premarital sex and pregnancy, which are subject to specific legal conditions under the Hindu Marriage Act. The court noted that the appellant was aware of the premarital pregnancy on the date of marriage but still married the respondent, which affects the maintainability of a nullity petition based on those grounds (!) (!) .

2. The court observed that the appellant did not file the petition within the prescribed time limit for challenging the marriage on the grounds of premarital pregnancy, rendering the petition under Section 12(1)(d) not maintainable. The evidence did not sufficiently establish that the respondent was pregnant by someone other than the appellant at the time of marriage, and the presumption of legitimacy of the child was upheld, given the lack of evidence to rebut it (!) (!) (!) .

3. The appellant's allegations of illicit intimacy and premarital pregnancy were not conclusively proved. The evidence, including medical opinion and witness testimony, did not substantiate the claim that the respondent was pregnant before marriage or that the child was born through someone other than the respondent. The court emphasized that the burden of proof to establish non-access or illegitimacy rests heavily on the appellant, and in this case, it was not discharged (!) (!) (!) (!) .

4. The appellant attempted to rely on a release deed to support the claim that the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent, but the court found that the document lacked legal validity and was not supported by proper evidence or customary proof. The court also noted that the respondent did not accept the dissolution and denied signing any such agreement voluntarily (!) .

5. The appellant's claim of desertion was not substantiated by evidence. Although the petition mentioned desertion, there was no clear proof that the respondent abandoned the marriage without reasonable cause, especially since she expressed willingness to live with the appellant and was driven out due to the appellant's illicit relationship with another woman. The court clarified that desertion requires a continuous intention to end the marital relationship, which was not established here (!) (!) (!) .

6. Evidence demonstrated that the appellant was living with another woman, Muthulakshmi, as evidenced by electoral records and other documents showing cohabitation and the birth of a child with her. This supported the respondent’s claim that the appellant developed illicit intimacy and was living as her husband, which was consistent with the allegations of infidelity and the breakdown of the marriage (!) (!) (!) .

7. The court concluded that the family court’s dismissal of the divorce petition was justified, as the appellant failed to prove the grounds of premarital sex, pregnancy, or desertion. The evidence did not support the claim that the respondent deserted the marriage or that the marriage could be dissolved on the grounds alleged. The court upheld the presumption of legitimacy of the child and found no infirmity in the family court’s judgment (!) .

8. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay costs to the respondent. The connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed (!) .

In summary, the court rejected the appellant’s grounds for divorce based on premarital sex, pregnancy, and desertion, primarily due to insufficient evidence and procedural limitations. The evidence of illicit intimacy with another woman and the subsequent living arrangements supported the conclusion that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, but this was not sufficient to grant the divorce under the specified legal provisions.