Consistent ill-treatment and physical abuse by a spouse can constitute grounds for divorce based on cruelty and desertion.

This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal has been filed against judgment and decree made in C.M.A.No.42 of 2005, dated 13.3.2006, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court No. II), Tuticorin confirming the judgment and decree made in H.M.O.P.No.131 of 2005, dated 7.3.2005 on the file of Sub-Court, Tuticorin.

2. The wife is the appellant. The Petition for divorce filed by the husband on the ground of cruelty and desertion was allowed by the trial Court. The said judgment was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. In support of his claim of cruelty, the Petitioner/husband has averred in his petition as follows:-

The marriage between them was solemnized on 29.11.1984 and a girl child was born to them out of the wedlock on 28.9.1986.Thereafter, they were residing at Doovipurm third street, Thoothukudi. The Petitioner was employed as Professor in Kamaraj College. The respondent, who is an under- graduate has completed her post-graduation after marriage and that the respondent had refused to live in the joint family and had insisted to set up a separate residence. The respondent also became Lecturer in Annamalai College. After getting employment, the respondent did not give any respect to the Petitioner and refused to go and live with him in the new house constructed by him, because it was constructed with the assistance of the father of the Petitioner. She described the father of the Petitioner as Saturn and refused to live in the house claiming that she will not be comfortable there. It is also stated that she refused to attend the funeral of the Petitioner's father. It is further alleged that the respondent accused that the Petitioner is having illicit intimacy with his brother's wife. She even made the said accusation in the presence of others thereby creating uncomfortable situation for the Petitioner to live with her. In the year 2002, it is claimed that the respondent insisted the Petitioner to transfer the house in her name and when that was refused, she addressed him in singular and abused him in vulgar language. It is also claimed that she performed poojas engaging Thanthrics without the permission of the Petitioner. On 23.9.2003, he found that a registered letter addressed to him was thrown in the corner of the house and when she was questioned, she picked up broom-stick and beat up the Petitioner with it. All these activities resulted in undue hardship and cruelty to the Petitioner and therefore the Petitioner sought for divorce on the ground of cruelty as well as desertion.

3. The respondent resisted the claim of the Petitioner denying all those averments and contended that she lived as a dutiful wife. She also produced photographs to show that they lived happily. She would contend that she also discharged the loan that was availed for the purchase of the new house and that she has every right over the house.

4. Upon the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce as prayed for in the Petition?

5. The Petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and one Kasirajan was examined as P.W.2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 were marked. The respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R14 were marked.

6. Upon consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court reached the conclusion that the respondent is guilty of cruelty as well as desertion. The claim of the respondent that she did not commit any cruelty was disbelieved. The Petitioner is a Ph.D Degree holder. The learned Trial Judge has found that the evidence of P.W.1 corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 is quite natural and convincing. It has also recorded a categorical finding that the respondent has treated the Petitioner with cruelty and even beating up the Petitioner with broom-stick has been believed by the trial Court. Upon such findings, the trial Court after referring to the decisions of this Court as well as the Honourable Apex Court, concluded