The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of mental cruelty, desertion, and condonation of conduct under the Hindu Marriage Act, influencing the court's decision to grant divorce.

1. C.M.S.A.No.28 of 2016 has been filed challenging the judgment passed by the learned II Additional District Court, Tiruppur in C.M.A.No.12 of 2015, by which decree for divorce granted by the learned Sub Court, Tiruppur, in H.M.O.P.No.114 of 2013, was confirmed and C.M.S.A.No.29 of 2016 has been filed challenging the judgment passed by the learned II Additional District Court, Tiruppur in C.M.A.No.13 of 2015, by which dismissal of petition for restitution of conjugal rights by the learned Sub Court, Tiruppur in H.M.O.P.No.146 of 2014, was confirmed.

2. On the consent of both sides, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals, pending at the admission stage, are taken up for final disposal.

3. In both the appeals, the wife is the appellant and the husband is the respondent.

4. H.M.O.P.No.114 of 2013, was filed by the respondent/husband under Sections 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking to dissolve his marriage with the appellant/wife dated 03.06.2009.

5. H.M.O.P.No.146 of 2014 was filed by the appellant/wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.

6. In H.M.O.P.No.114 of 2013, it is the case of the respondent/husband that the marriage took place on 03.06.2009 at Avinashi Lingeswarar Temple, Avinashi, Tiruppur as per Hindu customary rights. Out of the wedlock they have a son by namely Sashwat born on 05.07.2010 and right from the day of marriage the appellant/wife has harassed and ill-treated him. The appellant/wife and her family members hurled abuses at him and his family members standing in front of his house, that the appellant/wife left for her parents house in Singanallur at Coimbatore after child birth, and thereafter she refused to come to Tiruppur, where the respondent/husband was residing. After birth of their son, the respondent/husband resided with the appellant/wife for 20 days at her parents residence, where he was treated like a slave, and it was becoming increasingly difficult for him to stay with appellant/wife in their parents’ house. The appellant/wife had always demanded to set up a separate family and compelled the respondent/husband not to reside with his parents, and hence she refused to come to the matrimonial home in spite of several requests made by the respondent/husband. Even during the year 2011 Deepavali time, the respondent/husband was abused and ill-treated by the appellant/wife and her parents. The appellant/wife never performed her duties as wife and she denied him ‘marital relationship’. Therefore, the respondent/husband sent a legal notice dated 16.04.2012 calling upon the respondent’s wife to resume the matrimonial life, but she was adamant and she refused to come back. Hence, the respondent/husband has filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.362 of 2012, for restitution of conjugal rights and later he withdrew the same, since the appellant/wife was also of the view that reunion is not possible, and the appellant/wife have never had any intention to live together. Though the appellant/wife sought for time of two months to resume cohabitation, but she did not turned up even after six months from the issuance of legal notice. In fact, later on even she refused to disclose her address, that she also telephonically informed that she is not inclined to live together and therefore, the petition filed by the husband/respondent for restitution of conjugal rights was later withdrawn. The respondent/husband was put to mental cruelty and the appellant/wife had also deserted him for more than the statutory period and hence the respondent/husband filed the petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.114 of 2013 before the learned Sub-Court, Tiruppur, against the appellant/wife on the grounds cruelty and desertion.

7. The appellant/wife resisted the petition for divorce by contending that the claim of the respondent/husband was false, she also states that the respondent/husband’s sister is a divorcee having a ten year son suffering from Autism, that the respondent/hu