For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Trial Court.

2. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.771 of 1999 before the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli, for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights against the appellant's wife on the ground that she voluntarily withdrawen from the matrimonial home and hence he sought for restitution of conjugal rights.

3. The appellant-wife has filed a written statement, denying the various allegations and resisted the claim for restitution of conjugal rights on multiple grounds and inter-alia contended that, the respondent/plaintiff- husband has not conducted himself properly and her life was threatened and she refused to join the matrimonial home on justifiable grounds.

4. Based upon the above pleadings, the Trial Court had framed as many as many as three issues for consideration.

5. On analysis of the evidence in both oral and documentary, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs sought for and the dismissed the suit, on appeal, the Lower Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Hence, the Second Appeal.

6. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law are framed:-

(i) Whether the first appellate Court had erred in reversing the judgment by not appreciating the fact deposed by respondent witnesses?

(ii) Whether the first appellate Court is correct in asking for corroboration of the evidence given by lady witness D.W.1?

(iii) Whether the first appellate Court is correct in not discussing all the judgments discussed in the trial Court judgment?

7. The factual matrix of the case are as follows:-

The marriage between the parties were solemnized on 20.08.1981 at Maharaja Naga Tirumana Mahal according to Muslim right and custom and initially, they have stated in the Maharaja Nagar and on 12.03.1984, they begotten a baby boy named as Ahamed Kammal and thereafter, on 11.04.1987 Hamsa Sabeeka was born and on 06.07.1994 Mahimudha Afra was born.

8. The respondent/plaintiff-husband filed the above suit for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground that the appellant-wife has left the matrimonial home without any justifiable cause and hence, he filed guardian O.P.No.36 of 1999 for the custody of one of the minor child and followed by another suit after pre-suit notice to come and joint with him and to discharge the matrimonial obligation and hence, suit for restitution of conjugal rights.

9. The said claim of the husband was resisted by the wife on multiple grounds in inter-alia contended that date of solemnization of marriage and birth of one son and two daughters were admitted and after the marriage, the father of the wife as set up a shop (viz) "zenith opticals" in the Tirunelveli Railway Station and also by investing one lakh rupee and also purchased a house for living in Tirunelveli in the name of the wife and the wife's father was already paid Rs.7,00,000/- on various heads on various occasions. He also looking after the educational expenses of all the three grand children and also given Fridge, Refrigerator, T.V. and Washing Machine. All the domestic materials for leading the life. However, the plaintiff has forged the optical-shop accounts and created a impression that as if there was a loss in the business and hence compelled the appellant wife to raise the loan by mortgage the house property. Since, properties are standing in her name, she refused and hence she was subjected to physical pain on 25.05.1999 and 30.05.1999 and on 30.05.1999, she refused sign the mortgage deed for raising the loan. She was threatened with knife and hence she left the matrimonial home due to the fear of her death, on that night, went to his eldest brother on the following date to her parents house. Subsequently, the husband has filed the G.W.O.P. No. 96 of 1999 and followed by the present suit for restitution of conjugal rights.

10. During the trial,