The main legal point established in the judgment is the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage due to long separation and mutual bickering, leading to mental cruelty. The court emphasized the need for sustained and persistent attempts by matrimonial courts to bring about reconciliation between parties at the initial stage of litigation and highlighted the futility of compelling parties to live together when the marriage has ceased to exist.

1. These Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals have been filed by the appellant under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the common judgment dated 18.4.2013 in C.M.A. Nos. 5 and 7 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pudukottai, reversing the common order dated 17.3.2008 passed in H.M.O.P. Nos. 10 of 2005 and 33 of 2002 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Pudukottai.

2. The appellant herein is the husband and he had filed H.M.O.P. No. 10 of 2005 under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce. The respondent herein is the wife and she had filed H.M.O.P. No. 33 of 2002 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights before the Sub-Court, Pudukottai.

3. It is an admitted fact that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 17.2.2002 in V.V. Kalyana Mahal at Chinnalapatti as per Hindu rites and customs. They do not have any issue from the wedlock.

4. The case of the appellant is that immediately after tying Thali, the respondent suddenly went to the room, which was allotted to her in the Kalyanayamandapam, without any reason and when the parents of the respondent went to the said room, she quarrelled. On seeing this, immediately, the appellant and his relatives also went to the room of the respondent and asked about the said quarrel. The respondent replied that only due to coercion by her parents, she married the appellant and she is not willing for the marriage with the appellant. After that the respondent left the said room and went to Pudukottai at late night on 17.2.2002 all alone. Due to the said activities of the respondent and her parents, the petitioner was put to not only mental cruelty but also irreparable hardship and injury.

5. According to the appellant, on 18.2.2002, he and his relatives went to Pudukottai and called upon the respondent to come and live with the appellant, for which the respondent did not agree. On 25.2.2002, the appellant sent a notice to the respondent. On 11.3.2002, the respondent sent a reply to the notice issued by the appellant. In the meanwhile, on 28.2.2002, the appellant lodged a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Dindigul. In the enquiry, the respondent told that she is not willing to live with the appellant. In the police station, the respondent and her parents demanded Rs. 1.00 lakh from the appellant for dissolution of the marriage and the appellant refused to do so. Thereafter, the respondent lodged a false complaint before the All Women Police Station, Pudukottai, where the police officials advised the respondent to live with the appellant, but the respondent refused. Thereafter, the appellant issued another legal notice on 21.10.2002 seeking for divorce. Despite receipt of the notice, the respondent did not reply. However, the respondent filed H.M.O.P. No. 33 of 2002 for restitution of conjugal rights. Hence, the appellant had filed petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage, Act 1955, hereinafter referred to as "the said Act" for divorce.

6. The respondent filed counter denying all the averments set out in the petition filed by the appellant, except the averment as to the solemnization of the marriage on 17.2.2002 between them as per the Hindu rites and customs. According to the respondent, when she was always been ready and willing to resume marital life with the appellant, he wilfully neglected and deserted the respondent by wilful denial of conjugal rights. There was no occasion for the police to advise the respondent to live with the appellant. It is stated that the appellant and his brother had been motivated to abandon permanently the respondent by means of police threat and harassment also.

7. According to the respondent, there was no cruelty and the cruelty and mental agony alleged by the appellant was invented for the purpose of filing the petition. All the attempts to bring the appella