The main legal point established in the judgment is that evidence of cruelty, irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, and unwillingness to reunite can lead to the grant of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.

M.V. Muralidaran, J.

The brief facts of the case is follows:

The appellant is a husband and the respondent is a wife. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 31.01.1994 at Tuticorin, according to Hindu Customs and Rites in the presence of their elders. After the marriage, the appellant and respondent lived at Korampallam for some time and moved to Coimbatore. Out of the lawful wedlock they got two daughters namely Anjana and Rathna. From the date of marriage there was no smooth relationship between the spouses. The respondent would frequently pickup quarrel with the appellant and purposely raised her voice and go and stand in the road so as to attract the neighbour with a view to humiliate the appellant. Frequently the respondent would go away in a huff to her parents house and remain there for weeks together and she would return only after great persuation and efforts by the appellant. After the birth of Anjana the respondent continued to live with her parents and the same was repeated. The respondent developed undesirable friendship with one Uma Maheswari, whose husband Ramasubramanian was an accountant in the appellants shop. The said Umamaheswari extract money from the respondent. On the said advice of Uma Maheswari the respondent gave 110 sovereigns gold to auto rickshaw man. The respondent has been deceiving the appellant and Others by wearing similar spurious gilt coated jewels. The appellant came out to know of this bizarre incident only on 23.04.2001 through the respondent's father. With great difficulty and mental agony and expenses the appellant was able to retrieve 100 sovereign of jewel through police. All the above incidents and the behavior of the respondent have caused untold mental cruelty to the appellant. From September 2001 the appellant arranged to settle the respondent and the younger daughter Rathna in a rented house in his native place and is meeting all the maintenance expenses of the respondent and the child and hence the appellant has suffered cruelty and for the above mental torture, the appellant issued a notice to the respondent on 22.07.2002 for dissolving the marriage on mutual consent. The respondent sent a reply notice on 29.07.2002. the appellant sent a rejoinder notice on 01.08.2002. Thereafter the appellant has filed H.M.O.P.No.98 of 2002 of divorce under section 9 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent wife filed a counter by denying the said allegations. The respondent herein filed H.M.O.P.No.115 of 2002 seeking for restoration of conjugal rights. The appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and one Iyappan and Vedamani was examined as PW 2 and PW 3 and 9 documents were marked on his side as Exs.P.1 to P.9. The respondent examined herself as R.W.1 and one Muthusamy was examined as R.W.2 and documents were marked on her side.

2. The learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, considering the pleadings put forth on either side, oral and documentary evidence and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, held that the appellant has not proved the allegation of mental cruelty and dismissed H.M.O.P.No. 98 of 2003 filed by him and allowed H.M.O.P.No.115 of 2002 filed by respondent. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree the appellant herein filed C.M.A.Nos.46 and 47 of 2003 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court No II, Tuticorin. The Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court No II, Tuticorin by a judgment and decree dated 05.10.2005 in C.M.A.Nos.46 and 47 of 2005 allowed the C.M.A. Aggrieved against the same the respondent herein filed a C.M.S.A.(MD)Nos.21 and 22 of 2005 before this Court. By judgment dated 14.05.2011 this Court C.M.S.A.(MD)Nos.21 and 22 of 2005 remanded to the first appellant Court for fresh disposal after affording due opportunities to both parties. There after the The Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court No II, Tuticorin by a judgmen