The court defined cruelty as behavior causing genuine and reasonable apprehension in a spouse's mind, making it unsafe to continue the marital relationship. The court found the allegations to be trivial and noted the respondent's willingness to reconcile, leading to the dismissal of the petition for dissolution of marriage.

R. Subbiah, J.

1. By a common order dated 06.11.2012 made in OP Nos. 230 and 3128 of 2008, the learned II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai dismissed OP No. 230 of 2008 filed by the appellant/husband under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of The Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty and allowed the petition filed by the respondent/wife in OP No. 3128 of 2008 under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act. Challenging the said order dated 06.11.2012, the appellant/husband is before this Court with these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

2. From the averments made in OP No. 230 of 2008 filed by the appellant/husband, it could be inferred that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 22.08.2005 at Swagatham Kalyana Mandapam, Hotel Swagath Annexe, Royapettah, Chennai as per Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was an arranged marriage and it was also registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Tambaram on 24.08.2005. At the time of marriage, the appellant was employed as Marketing Manager in a private company at Bangalore and therefore, the appellant and the respondent, after marriage, commenced their matrimonial journey at Bangalore. According to the appellant, the marital life was peaceful and blissful for some time and after marriage, the appellant purchased a flat out of the wedding gift amount given by his brother in United States and also with his own money and loan arranged through the bank. It is the grievance of the appellant that the respondent would behave well in the morning when he leaves his home, but at the time when he returns to the home, she used to quarrel with him purportedly on the ill advise given by her parents. It is the further grievance of the appellant that the respondent often behaved like an insane person and used to talk to herself in the bedroom. The behaviour of the respondent was very odd that she used to walk here and there without any reasons. During March/April 2006, the respondent attempted to commit suicide by consuming an insecticide named 'Hit' and the appellant struggled hard to snatch the insecticide from her. On one such occasion, the respondent quarrelled with him loudly that the appellant attempted to close her mouth and at that time, she bit him and behaved like an insane person and the appellant was made to hit her in impulsion. Immediately, the respondent called her parents over phone and exaggerated the incident. Notwithstanding the same, the respondent also threatened the appellant that she will go to police station and lodge a complaint against him under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act and Dowry Harassment Act.

3. According to the appellant, the respondent became pregnant and at that time, his parents called her over phone, but she refused to talk to them. The parents of the respondent never made arrangements to perform the customary function during the 5th month of pregnancy. However, after much insistence, the parents of the respondent made arrangement for seemantham during the 7th month of pregnancy and the father of the respondent suggested to perform such function on 10th June, 2006 and the appellant also agreed for the same. The parents of the respondent took her along with them to the matrimonial home on 9th April 2006. On 23.04.2006, when the appellant and his father visited the respondent in her parents house and when his father was talking to the respondent, the father of the respondent unnecessarily interfered with the discussion and disturbed their talks. Inspite of the same, the appellant went to see the respondent once again and on that day, the father of the respondent shouted at him in filthy language and pushed him out of his house. Thereafter, the appellant was not even allowed to talk to the respondent. By citing this incident, the respondent cancelled the seemantham function which has caused acute mental agony and hardship to the respondent. Further, the respondent never informed