The burden of proof lies with the party making allegations in matrimonial disputes, and taking advantage of one's own wrong disentitles a party from seeking relief.

R. Subbiah, J

1. The appellant herein has filed HMOP No. 19 of 2014 before the Family Court, Erode under Section 13 (1) (i) (i-a) of The Hindu Marriage Act seeking to dissolve the marriage solemnised between him and the respondent on 11.02.2008. The Family Court, by Judgment and decree dated 10.02.2015 dismissed the Original Petition against which the appellant has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. Originally, the appellant filed HMOP No. 2916 of 2010 on the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai for dissolution of the marriage. On notice, the respondent has filed Tr.C.M.P. No. 517 of 2010 before this Court to withdraw and transfer HMOP No. 2916 of 2010 from the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai to the file of Principal Sub Court, Erode. By order dated 16.11.2010, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition was allowed by this Court. Thereafter, HMOP No. 2916 of 2010 filed by the appellant stood transferred to the file of Principal Sub Court, Erode and re-numbered as HMOP No. 10 of 2011 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Erode. Thereafter, for want of jurisdiction, HMOP No. 10 of 2011 stood transferred and re-numbered as HMOP No. 19 of 2014 on the file of Family Court, Erode.

3.(i) The appellant has filed HMOP No. 19 of 2014 (HMOP No. 2916 of 2010) contending that the marriage between him and the respondent was solemnised on 11.02.2008 at Sakthi Duraisamy Mandapam, Erode as per Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was an arranged marriage having been solemnised at the instance of elders of both sides. It was stated that the marriage expenses were shared by the appellant as well as by the parents of the respondent and the appellant did not demand any dowry at the time of marriage. Even at the time of marriage, the appellant had clearly informed the respondent and her parents that he had to appear for one examination to clear the DNB Course and that is the reason why he was working as Tutor in Meenakshi Medical College. The appellant also clearly disclosed to the respondent about the salary of Rs.25,000/- earned by him out of his employment and on his completion of DNB examination, he has the prospects of earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- more per month.

(ii) After the marriage, the appellant and the respondent have set up their matrimonial home at Kilpauk, Chennai in a rented house. Due to the wedlock between the appellant and the respondent, on 05.12.2009, a male child was born. According to the appellant, the respondent is a chronic deserter and she used to desert the matrimonial company of the appellant and stay at her parents house at Namakkal for indefinite period. It was further complained by the appellant that the respondent used to quarrel with him for no reasons and immediately after such quarrel, she used to leave Chennai and go to Namakkal. According to the appellant, the respondent had two mobile phones with her and she was talking to persons unknown to the appellant and when it was questioned, the respondent exhibited rude and harsh behaviour towards him. It was further complained that within a month of the marriage, when the appellant and the respondent were sleeping in the bed room, the respondent received a call from one Nandhu at about 10.00 p.m. and immediately, the respondent left the room and started chatting with him for hours together. Similarly, on another occasion, when the appellant was away from the matrimonial home, the respondent called one Dhamu and invited him for going out for a lunch and also to stay with her in the matrimonial home. Further, the respondent has also hidden the letters received through courier by her and also avoided attending the phone calls when the appellant was present. According to the appellant, the said Nandhu used to call the respondent often during night hours and the respondent conversed with the said Nandhu for an indefinite period. On some occasion, when the appellant asked the respondent as to who called her, she refused to divulge the identity