R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.

The husband whose petition for divorce filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty was dismissed by the Family Court, Karaikal is the appellant. The Original Petition in MOP No. 1 of 2015 was filed by the appellant seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. Originally the same was numbered as HMOP No.3 of 2012 and upon constitution of Family Court at Karaikal the same was renumbered as MOP No.1 of 2015.

The brief averments made in the Petition are as follows :

2. The marriage between the parties took place on 12.12.2010 at Mannarkudi, according to Hindu Rites and Customs. The appellant husband was working as Head of the Department, Department of Microbiology in RVS College of Arts and Science at Karaikal. The appellant and the respondent started the matrimonial life at Door No. 33 North Street, Kovilpathu, Karaikal. The appellant learnt that the father of the respondent had lied with regard to the number of daughters he had. When the parents of the appellant along with appellant visited his in-law’s house at Mannarkudi, on 25.12.2010, the father of the appellant enquired as to why such a false statement was made about the number of daughters. However, the respondent’s father did not come out with any direct reply. The matter was not taken seriously by the father of the appellant, but the appellant felt that the behaviour of the father of the respondent was very strange, inasmuch as taught it fit to suppress existence of two daughters at the time of marriage and the two daughters also did not attend the marriage.

3. In order to have clarity, the appellant raised the issue with his father-in-law, when he went to his house just before Pongal. The father of the respondent flared up and shouted at him. He also told him that he would beget even 10 daughters and that the appellant has no right to question him. This sent shock waves and the appellant felt deeply hurt by the conduct of the father-in-law. In spite of that the appellant visited the house of the father-in-law after 6 days to take back the respondent to Karaikal.

4. During later part of January 2011, the appellant happened to visit Mannakudi along with his friend to identify certain lands, which his friend Jaya Prabhu wanted to purchase. His friend suggested that they visit the appellant’s father-in-law house, since he was staying in Mannarkudi, so that they could make some enquiries about the property. Therefore, the appellant along with his friend went to his father-in-law’s house. To his shock and dismay, the respondent’s father did not welcome the appellant and his friend, he even claimed that the appellant is causing nuisance by visiting the in-law s house. The appellant felt humiliated by the reaction of the father of the respondent. Since the appellant felt depressed about the happenings, he had sought the help of his paternal uncle Mr. Ajaykumar, who is a School Teacher in Karaikal, regarding the developments that had taken place in the home front and sought his advice. Since the paternal aunt of the appellant Mrs. Pavai, was related to the respondent’s elder sister’s husband, it appears that the said Mrs. Pavai had taken up the issue with the respondent’s elder sister’s husband, who in turn had enquired the respondent’s father about his conduct. Enraged by the intervention of other relatives, who intervened with good intentions, the respondent’s father called the grand uncle of the appellant Mr. Singaravel, who was residing at Thiruvarur and claimed that he would see that his daughter is separated from her in-laws or he would take her to Manarkudi. These happenings had a direct bearing on the marital life of the appellant.

5. The father of the respondent induced her over phone to quarrel with the appellant and each time the respondent spoke to her father, she would immediately react in violent and insolent manner. There was a discrepancy in the date of birth of the respondent in the