Rajasuria, J.

1. This appeal is focussed as against the order passed in C.M.A.No. 111 of 2001 on the file of the District Judge, Trichy, dated 03.05.2002, in setting aside the order passed in H.M.O.P. No. 49 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Trichy, dated 16.08.2001.

2. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder as husband and wife.

3. Both the Courts below detailed and delineated the averments as found set out in the petition as well as in the counter and reply. Even then, I am of the view that this being a matrimonial matter, it is just and necessary to broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely set out the facts thus:

The nitty-gritty, the gist and kernel of the case of the petitioner as stood exposited from the petition which was filed under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriages Act, by the husband Anand, (hereinafter referred to as the husband.) as against the respondent Indu (hereinafter referred to as the wife.) on the ground of cruelty, would run thus:

(i) Anand, and Indu, got married as per the Hindu Rites and Customs on 11.09.1995 at Trichy as arranged by the eldeRs. Within a short span of time after marriage, the couple started living at Manipal for a period of eight months together, where he understood that the wife was interested in separating the husband from his parents and insisted upon him to obtain properties from them. Since the husband had to take up the examinations relating to his higher studies there in Manipal itself, he sent his wife to her parents house in Chennai. Subsequently, the husband was compelled to live in the house of the wife as "Veetu Mappillai. Even though he got employment in Kerala, he could not accept that appointment as Doctor, because the wife was pregnant by that time. Subsequently, the wife sensing that fetus was a female one, she underwent abortion voluntarily. The wife was instrumental in creating ill-will between the two families of the spouses. The wife indulged in perpetrating mental cruelty to the husband. He was humiliated by the wife, her parents and the brother-in-law of the husband. The wife often intimidated that the wife would put the husband in trouble by giving complaint as against him under the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(ii) During the month of August, 1997, the husband went to Manipal for a few days and took advice from his Professor there as he got fed up with wifes cruelty towards him. Subsequently, she pleaded for mercy and thereupon, both of them rejoined and started living in Chennai with wifes parents till October 1997. But, she indulged in recidivism. The husband went to Coimbatore and got appointment in Ganga Hospital. Since, she expressed her desire to rejoin, he permitted her to do so, but that lasted only for a week. She was often quarreling with the husband. She wanted the husband to estrange his parents. Therefore she frequently intimidated the husband that she would commit suicide. One Baskaran tried to mediate between the couple, but it failed. The parents of the wife were not in any way helpful for the husband and the wife to live peacefully. The husband issued legal notice on 19.03.1998 for which there was no reply. The husband apprehended danger to his life at the hands of his wife, because she caused mental and physical cruelty to him. Ultimately, he was driven to the extent of filing the petition for divorce.

4. Per contra, denying and refuting, challenging and impugning, the allegations/averments in the petition, the respondent wife filed the counter with the averments inter alia thus:

(i) The parents of the wife spent a sum of Rs. 50,000/-for celebrating the wedding notice ceremony and the husbands mother and younger sister demanded Rs. 25,000/-by cash and also demanded a ring for the husband. Such demands were duly complied with by the wifes parents. On the husbands side, various silver articles were demanded along with the gold ornaments of 100 sovereigns, for which also the wifes