R. SUBBIAH, J.

1. Both these appeals arise out of the common order dated 18.04.2015 passed in O.P. No. 2385 of 2006 and O.P. No. 2809 of 2006 on the file of II Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai. By the said order dated 18.04.2015, the Family Court dismissed OP No. 2385 of 2006 filed by the husband/appellant under Section 10 (ix) & (x) of Indian Divorce Act for dissolution of the marriage dated 14.01.1988 and consequently OP No. 2809 of 2007 filed by the wife/respondent under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed.

2. As both the appeals arise out of the common order dated 18.04.2015 passed by the II Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai and common arguments have been advanced by counsel for both sides, they are taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. (i) The appellant-husband has filed OP No. 2385 of 2006 under Section 10 (ix) (x) of The Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for dissolution of the marriage solemnised between him and the respondent. According to the appellant, he married the respondent on 14.01.1988 as per Christian rites and customs and the marriage was solemnised at St. George's Cathedral, Chennai in the presence of family members, relatives and friends of both sides. At the time of marriage, the appellant was working in Bangalore and therefore, after the marriage, the appellant and the respondent started the matrimonial life at Bangalore. At the time of marriage, the respondent had just finished medicine and she had to complete her term as a house surgeon.

(ii) It is the contention of the appellant that all was not well from the beginning of the marriage. The appellant attribute the hardships confronted in the matrimonial life due to the family background of the respondent. According to the appellant, the parents of the respondent had family disputes and they had given complaint before the Police against each other. After his marriage, the mother of the respondent separated from her husband and lived with the appellant and the respondent at Bangalore by stating that the differences between the parents of the respondent could be patched up if the mother of the respondent is permitted to reside with them in Bangalore.

(iii) Due to the wedlock between the appellant and the respondent, on 09.02.1990, a son Michael Fredrick was born. Soon after the birth of the male child, the male child was left under the care of the mother of the respondent at Krishnagiri as they felt that he would be brought up well by the grand mother. During 1992, the father of the appellant died and therefore his mother stayed with him. Thereafter, in the year 1993, the appellant purchased a house in Hosur, which house is situate few meters away from the house where the mother of the respondent was living. The appellant, who is a Doctor by profession, attended to his work at a Primary Health Centre, Bangalore and came back to Hosur in frequent intervals. In the year 1995, the second son Daniel Fredrick was born. In the meantime, the mother of the respondent, under the guise of visiting the respondent in his house, ill-advised her which led to frequent quarrel between the appellant and the respondent. Above all, the respondent suspected the appellant as having an illicit affair with other women and ranked him as a womaniser. The respondent also informed the alleged illicit affair of the appellant with his colleagues and acquaintances to the sister, brother and mother of the appellant. Furthermore, the respondent also accused the colleagues of the appellant and complained to his spouse as if the appellant/her husband is having illicit relationship with their wives. When the appellant joined a course to pursue Master of Business Administration in the evening, the respondent accused him of having illicit relationship with one of the females studying along with him. Here again, the respondent called upon the husband of the females studying with him and questioned