The judgment established that mental cruelty in matrimonial cases does not require the intention to harm and emphasized the importance of the effect of the conduct on the other spouse. It also clarified the concept of condonation and the principle of not taking advantage of one's own wrongs.

1. While C.M.S.A. No. 22 of 1991 is directed against the judgment of the District Court, North Arcot District in C.M.A. No. 4 of 1989, C.M.S.A. No. 23 of 1991 is directed against the judgment in C.M.A. No. 7 of 1989.

2. Both the said appeals before the District Court were filed by the opposite parties being the husband and wife not being satisfied with the order of the trial Court, Subordinate Judge, Vellore, in O.P. No. 53 of 1987. In the O.P. which was filed by the husband for divorce, the trial Court gave a decree for judicial separation. Both the husband and wife filed separate appeals and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the husband and allowed the appeal filed by the wife and hence both the above Second Appeals by the husband aggrieved by the rejection of his petition for divorce.

3. In the petition for divorce, the petitioner/appellant herein contended that their marriage took place on 11.2.1976 and after the marriage, they were living together as husband and wife till January, 1982 and a male child was born who was eight years old. The petitioner was a Medical Graduate and a Child Health Specialist employed in the Government Primary Health Centre, Kedar. He was also doing consultancy practice at Vettavalam. After graduation in April, 1981, he settled at Vettavalam which is his native place. He also started a Part time clinic in Tiruvannamalai and at that time the respondent was in her fathers house in Tiruvannamalai, after abortion in C.M.C. hospital. The respondent used to call on the petitioner in the clinic and on two occasions, she had removed money in the clinic without the permission of the petitioner. Thereafter misunderstandings arose between the parties and according to the appellant, the behaviour of the respondent became worse. She started scolding the petitioner and his family members and compel the petitioner not to run the clinic at Vettavulam and also to divide his property in his native place. One day she went to the extent of charging the petitioner with the theft of a gold chain and that the petitioner should have handed over the chain to some woman with whom he was having illicit connection. The respondent also started sending anonymous letters to the said effect and went to the extent of scolding and beating the petitioners mother and brother with Chapals. Unable to bear the mental agony, the petitioners wanted to leave the house, but the respondent locked the house from inside and did not allow the petitioner to go out for rest of the day. The petitioner further states that as it was unwise to visit the respondents house again, he sent one Dhanapal to the respondents house to advise her. But she refused to return to the house and made a false complaint to Dhanapal that the petitioner was having illicit relationship with his sister in law in Madras and he had also stolen gold chain and gave it to some other woman. The petitioner thought that good sense would prevail with the respondent, but all of a sudden, she had sent a notice through her counsel on 19.3.1982 for which a suitable reply was given. There were subsequent exchange of notices. All his efforts to rejoin with the respondent was in vain and having waited for a period of three years, he filed a petition in O.P. No. 33 of 1985 for divorce on the ground of desertion. The respondent appeared through her counsel and subsequently, there was a compromise on 1.11.1985 whereby the petitioner and the respondent agreed to live together at Vettavalam, the native place of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner further contends that after the compromise, the respondent was taken to his house and he had given her new clothes. But she refused to take them and insulted him. She created scenes at Vettavalam by scolding the petitioner and his parents openly in the street and making complaints about them to everybody. While the petitioner was away to write Executive Officers Test at Cuddalore, on 3.11.1985, the respondent all of a sudde