The main legal point established in the judgment is that reckless and false allegations made by one spouse against the other, which are found to be patently false, can amount to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, leading to the dissolution of the marriage.

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

1. The appellant is the wife, who has filed the appeal against the Order and Decreetal Order dated 28.09.2013 passed by the II Additional Family Court, Chennai in O.P. No. 1447 of 2007, granting decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(1-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the Original Petition for divorce by the respondent/husband seeking divorce was that he and the appellant got married on 03.09.2004 at Sri Varalakshmi Ramachandra Tirumana Mandapam, Sevoor, Arani Taluk, according to Hindu rites and custom and that the marriage was arranged one; that he had given dollar chain worth about 5 sovereigns and also 7 rings worth about 5 sovereigns to the appellant/wife at the time of marriage and that 50% of the marriage expenses was borne by him and that no demand of dowry was made at the time of marriage; that the respondent/husband does not know what are the jewels and other articles given to the appellant/wife at the time of marriage by way of Sridhana; that immediately after the marriage, both of them lived together happily in the respondent's sister's house, only for one week. Before the marriage the appellant's relative one Mr. R. Vinayagamoorthy who negotiated the marriage had informed him that the appellant is a graduate and belonged to a reputed family and only after marriage the respondent came to know that the appellant had studied only up-to plus two and that the other details given before the marriage were false and that the appellant and her relatives had given a false and manipulated Jathagam to suit the respondent's Jathagam and only after the marriage and that the respondent came to know that the Jathagam given by the appellant and her relatives was a false one.

3. It was further alleged that the respondent was shocked to hear from the appellant's own relatives that she was having illegal contact with one Sembian even before marriage and that the respondent came to know that, even after marriage the said Sembian had come to the house when the respondent was in his office; that the appellant lived as a wife with the respondent only for a week and thereafter failed and neglected to do her matrimonial obligations; that one person by name Saravanan claiming himself to be the appellant's cousin brother came to Chennai and stayed in the house and that after a week from the date of the marriage, one afternoon when the respondent came from the office, he found the appellant and Saravanan in the bed room in compromising position and when he questioned about the same out of shock, the appellant coolly informed that she had contact with Saravanan even before the marriage and threatened the respondent that if he disclosed the same to anybody she would commit suicide and throw the blame on the respondent; that the appellant after solemnization of the marriage, voluntarily had sexual intercourse with Saravanan and that the appellant often picked up petty quarrels with the respondent and created a big scene and that even does not allow him to sleep and that she has also beaten the respondent on one or two occasions when she got angry; that the respondent could not tolerate the way she shouts at loud pitch using unparliamentarily words and filthy language and that she pressurized him that he should not go to any of his relatives house.

4. It was further alleged that on 12.11.2006 when the respondent was having his dinner in his brother's house, the appellant barged into the house and started shouting at loud pitch for nothing and created a big scene as if the respondent's brother and sister-in-law beat her, however nothing untoward had happened on that day; that the respondent's relatives took the issue before the local councilor and the same was turned futile and that from 13.11.2006 the appellant deserted the respondent; that after that incident, he tried to negotiate with her to lead a smooth life, however he was informed that she was interested to live with