False allegations of dowry harassment and illegitimate relationship by one spouse can amount to mental cruelty and contribute to the irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

1. The couple, related to each other even before the marriage, who ought to have honoured the marriage by celebrating Silver Jubilee, have made the marital life miserable by fighting with each other in the Court for more than a decade.

2. The husband filed a petition for divorce under Sections 13(1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of cruelty and desertion before the Additional Subordinate Court, Tenkasi, seeking the relief of divorce. It was dismissed by the Trial Court on 14.06.1999. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the divorce petition, he preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.75 of 1999 before the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Tirunelveli. Again, it also met with the same fate and it was dismissed on 06.03.2002. As against the concurrent dismissals, the husband has filed C.M.S.A.No.19 of 2002 before this Court.

3. The wife filed a petition in HMOP No.32 of 1997 before the Sankagiri Sub-Court, praying for restitution of conjugal rights. It came to be transferred to the Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi and renumbered as HMOP No.22 of 1999. It was dismissed on 17.07.2000 as against which, the wife filed C.M.A. No.13 of 2001 before the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Tirunelveli, where she succeeded. Aggrieved over the order of the Lower Appellate Court directing restitution of conjugal rights, the husband has filed C.M.S.A.No.18 of 2002 before this Court.

4. The appeal was heard on the following substantial questions of law:-

"1) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in ignoring the categorical finding of the Trial Court with regard to the admission made by the wife regarding the allegations made by her, and allowing the appeal, without considering the relevant documents and evidence?

2) Whether the conduct of the wife in filing false cases against her husband would amount to mental cruelty and whether the finding of the Trial Court overlooking the admission made by the wife is correct?

3) Whether the Lower Appellate Court ought to have considered the ground of breakdown of marriage at least in the context of long separation between the married couple?"

5. The brief facts:-

The appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The respondent is his own sister's daughter. The marriage between them took place on 10.06.1984. After the marriage, they lived together for two months. The problem started within two months of the marriage and the wife was at her parents' house. After four years of the marriage, at the instance of the relatives, both of them lived together for a period of seven months. During that time, the wife got conceived and went to her parents' place during seventh month of her pregnancy. After the birth of the child, by name, Karthiga, on 24.11.1988, she did not return to her marital home. The wife issued a notice to the husband on 15.05.1986. As per the allegations, in the notice the husband was guilty of maintaining illegitimate relationship with one lady and also by making demand for dowry from the wife. The husband issued a notice to the wife calling upon her to give her consent for divorce. The wife gave a reply under Ex.B3 dated 17.03.1997 alleging cruelty on the part of her husband and expressing her longing to live with the husband, provided the safety to her is assured. Incidentally, she has attributed desertion also on the part of the husband.

6. From the facts it is evident that even though the matrimonial life commenced in the year 1984, even after the completion of 28 years, the couple has lived together, totally, not even for one year. The husband alleges cruelty and desertion on the part of the wife and vice versa, the wife also alleges cruelty and desertion on the part of the husband. But, the husband seeks relief of divorce, but the wife seeks relief of restitution of conjugal rights. The Principal Sub-Court, Tenkasi, in O.P.No.22 of 1999, where the wife is the petitioner (seeking relief of restitution