JUDGMENT :

M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 14.12.2006 passed in M.O.P.No.132 of 2001 on the file of the Family Court, Puducherry, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Article 237 and 242 of French Code Civil, seeking to dissolve the marriage dated 11.2.1993 solemnized between the appellant and the 1st respondent and also directing the 2nd respondent to cancel the entry from the register of marriage in Etat Civil De, Nellithope, dated 11.2.1993 as No.9 of 1993.

2. The appellant is the husband and the 1st respondent is the wife.

3. The case of the appellant is that the marriage between the appellant and the 1st respondent was held on 11.2.1993 and after the marriage, the 1st respondent lived only for three months in the appellant's house and even during the said three months, she often used to leave the appellant alone and reside with her parents, without his consent and knowledge. The 1st respondent persisted the appellant to set up a separate conjugal home away from his parents even though, they were living in his parents house in a separate room.

4. Further case of the appellant is that in order to save the name of his family, the appellant arranged for a house at Tagore Nagar and during that period of their life at Tagore Nagar, the intolerable activities of the 1st respondent continued. The 1st respondent did not behave like a dutiful wife and she did not give respect to the appellant. In fact, the 1st respondent permanently left the conjugal home on 17.3.1994 on her own accord. The efforts to bring her back through mediators failed and after 17.3.1994, she never returned to his house and desertion started from that date and continued till the date of the petition. In this background, the appellant husband filed petition seeking dissolution of marriage.

5. Per contra, the case of the 1st respondent is that the appellant had ill-treated her by not providing food and he often beat her and also abused her in filthy language. The 1st respondent was driven out from the conjugal home by the appellant and his parents. Even though she had an apprehension of danger to her life, through mediators of the family, counsellors and Reddiarpalayam Church Priest, there was reconciliation and in the year 1995, the appellant and the 1st respondent reunited in a home away from her in-laws. On 15.7.1996, a male child was born and the same itself disproves the case of desertion as alleged by the appellant. According to the 1st respondent, in September 1998, the appellant picked up quarrel without any proper reason, beat her and drove her out of the conjugal home.

6. Before the Family Court, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and one Susainathan and Jeya were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. The 1st respondent examined herself as R.W.1 and no document was marked.

7. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Court below dismissed the petition filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

8. Assailing the order of the Court below, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Court below has acted in total contradiction to the provision of law and therefore, the order cannot be sustained. He would submit that the Court below failed to appreciate that the parties are living apart and there is no question of them coming together and living again as husband and wife. He would further submit that the Court below also erred in holding that the appellant did not point out the factum of having child after 1996 and the finding that the petition does not reveal about the child is contrary to facts, as the appellant has clearly stated in his petition about his son and his education expenses. Therefore, there is no question of suppression of facts.

9. The learned counsel further submitted that the 1st respondent had taken away all her items from the appellant's house and to that effect, she had al