JUDGMENT :

Prayer in C.M.S.A.No.5 of 2018

Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 r/w Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 22.03.2017 passed in C.M.A.No.13 of 2015 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu and the order dated 12.06.2014 passed in I.A.No.115 of 2013 in H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2008 on the file of Sub Judge, Tambaram.

Prayer in C.M.S.A.No.6 of 2018

Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 r/w Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 22.03.2017 passed in C.M.A.No.10 of 2014 confirming the Judgment of the trial court dated 12.06.2014 in H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2008 dissolving the marriage of the appellant and respondent on 01.02.2002.

Since the issues involved in both the cases are one and the same, they are taken up together and a common judgment is being passed.

2. The appellant has raised the following questions of law in C.M.S.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 2018:

C.M.S.A.No.5 of 2018:

(i) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in upholding the order of the trial court awarding permanent maintenance to the respondent/wife who is a qualified Architect leading a lucrative profession?

(ii) Whether the lower appellate court was justified in upholding the order the trial court awarding maintenance to the respondent/wife who has accepted the acts of cruelty before and during the trial proceedings, of indulging in attempts to commit suicide or threatening to commit suicide, leading to the situation of irretrievable break down of marriage?

(iii) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right by ignoring the Supreme Court Judgment, Viz., AIR 1975 SC 1534 and several other Judgments cited by the Appellant/Husband which resulted in total miscarriage of justice?

C.M.S.A.No.6 of 2018:

(i) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in not upholding the settled position of Law by Supreme court that' threat to commit suicide is mental cruelty in view of the Supreme Court Judgment in Mayadevi V. Jagdish Prasad (AIR 2007 SC 1426 Para 9 and AIR 1975 SC 1534 praras No.24, 30 and 51)

(ii) Whether the lower appellate court was justified in ignoring the position of Law laid down by the Supreme Court that there is 'Irretrievable breakdown of marriage' when there is along period of continuous separation i.e., 14 years in this matter with reference to the Supreme Court Judgment in (2007) 4 SCC 511)?

(iii) Whether the respondent/wife's son non-seeking of the relief of restitution of conjugal rights has been completely ignored by the lower appellate court?

(iv) Whether the Lower appellate Court was justified incompletely ignoring the view of Supreme Court in the Judgment viz., (2010) 10 SCC 513 (paras 15 and 18) and holding that the evidence of the power of attorney is insufficient?

(v). Whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in not applying Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 to the facts of the case?

(vi). Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in not considering the facts and materials, averred in the petition filed by the appellant seeking divorce?

(vii). Whether the Lower Appellate Court by ignoring the law declared by the Supreme Court which shall be binding on all courts, has violated the Article 14 of the Constitution of India.?

3. The case of the appellant is that he has filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Subordinate Court, Tambaram represented by his Power of Attorney, [dated 15.10.2008, executed at Georgia, USA] father, viz., M.K.Periasamy, residing at No.39/119, P.V.Vaidyalingam Road, Old Pallavaram, Chennai - 600 117 for divorce. The appellant has stated that the respondent/wife has behaved with him in a rude and cantankerous manner and she did not do any house hold work stating that she is hailing from a very wealthy family. When the appellant wanted to include the respondent's name in the