M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.

1. These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed as against the Common Order dated 30.12.2008 passed in F.C.O.P. Nos. 958 of 2003 and 2418 of 2003 by the Learned Principal Family Court Judge, at Chennai.

2. The F.C.O.P. No. 958 of 2003 is filed by the husband, who is the Appellant herein as against his wife who is the respondent herein for the Relief of dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Further, the F.C.O.P. No. 2418 of 2003 was filed by the Respondent/wife for the restitution of her marital life and for custody of children under Sections 9 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3. As the parties in the aforesaid two cases are one and the same, the Learned Principal Family Court, Chennai, jointly tried the matter based on the Joint memo filed by the parties concerned. Further, in the course of the joint trial, evidence was recorded in F.C.O.P. No. 958 of 2003, However, the Petitioner in F.C.O.P. No. 958 of 2003 was examined as P.W. 1 and Exs. P1 to P19 were marked. At the same time the Respondent in the F.C.O.P. No. 958 of 2003 was examined as RW-1 and through her Exs.R1 to R54 were marked.

4. Considering the Petition filed by the parties concerned and also the counter affidavit filed by the parties the Learned Trial Court framed the following points for consideration, they are:

1. Whether the Respondent/Wife has treated the petitioner with cruelty?

2. Whether the Respondent/Wife suffering from any mental disorder, so that the Petitioner/Husband cannot be expected to live with Respondent/Wife?

3. Whether the Petitioner/Husband has got reasonable excuse for withdrawal from society of his wife?

4. Whether Petitioner/Husband is entitled to divorce as prayed for?

5. Whether Respondent/Wife is entitled to the relief of restitution of her conjugal rights as prayed for?

6. To what other relief?

5. After considering all the materials and evidence, the Learned Trial Court answered Point Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in favour of the Respondent/Wife. Further, Point No. 4 was also answered against the Appellant/Husband and Point No. 5 was ordered in favour of the Respondent/Wife and finally the application for divorce in F.C.O.P. No. 958 of 2003 was dismissed and the F.C.O.P. No. 1418 of 2003 was allowed.

6. Felling aggrieved over the order passed in the aforesaid F.C.O.Ps., the Husband has preferred these two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. Since the issue involved in these two Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is related with each other, it has been jointly heard on consent and the common order is passed.

7. The case of the Appellant is that the Court below has erred in disbelieving the evidence of P.W. 1 and failed to consider the oral evidence of the Appellant. Hence, he prays this Court to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

8. Per contra, the case of the Respondent/Wife according to the learned counsel for the wife is that the finding of the Learned Trial Judge need not be interfered as it is supported by cogent evidence and the alleged cruelty was not proved by the appellant. So, he prays for the dismissal of the appeals.

9. We heard Mrs. Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel for M/s. P.V. Rajeswari, learned counsel for the appellant and M/s. Sivakami Shanmugam Pillai, learned counsel for the respondent in both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and all the records available are perused.

10. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereby called as their capacity having in F.C.O.P. No. 958 of 2003 before the learned trial Court.

11. It is the case that the husband filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and wife has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The date of marriage and the birth of the children are admitted. It is seen from the records that subsequent to the marriage the spouses went to honeymoon trip to foreign country during March, 1990. At the same time even after a short span of marriage life some differences were arisen, and according to