The central legal point established in the judgment is the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage due to the failure to fulfill matrimonial obligations.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, r/w Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 15th day of December 2015 passed by the District Judge at Tiruvannamalai in C.M.A.No.2 of 2013, reversing the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2013 passed by the Principal Sub Judge at Tiruvannamalai in H.M.O.P.No.76 of 2009.)

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2015 passed by the District Judge at Tiruvannamalai in C.M.A.No.2 of 2013, reversing the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2013 passed by the Principal Sub Judge at Tiruvannamalai in H.M.O.P.No.76 of 2009.

2. The Substantial Questions of law raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant are as follows:

(i) Whether the first appellate courts has found mental pain, agony of suffering of such a magnitude that it severs the bond between the wife and husband to dissolve the marriage held between the parties in accordance with law?

(ii) Whether the First Appellate court being last fact finding authority comprehensively apprised the entire matrimonial life of the parties before dissolving the marriage on the ground of cruelty in the light of settled principles laid down by Apex Court and various High Courts?

(iii) Whether the first appellate Court has preceded the burden of proof in a manner known to law?

(iv) Whether the First appellate below exercised their power of discretion in accordance with the settled principles of law while decreeing suit?

(v) Whether the lower appellate court being final fact finding authority is right in dealing with appeal without formulating specific issues as contemplated under Order 41 Rule 25?”

3. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 27.03.2015 at Vishalatchi Thirumana Mandapam, Chetty Street, Thiruvannamalai as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. The contentions of the appellant is that the spouses were not living happily even immediately after the marriage. The respondent left the Matrimonial home and thereafter, a petition under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed seeking Dissolution of Marriage in H.M.O.P.No.76 of 2009.

4. The trial Court adjudicated the issues and dismissed the petition for divorce filed by the respondent/husband. The respondent filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.2 of 2013. The First Appellate Court elaborately considered the facts, circumstances as well as the evidences. It is contended that the respondent examined himself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and also one Settu examined as PW2. The appellant wife examined herself as RW1 and her mother one Kuppu examined as RW2.

5. The First Appellate Court considered the grounds raised by the appellant and the respondent. The point considered by the First Appellate Court was that whether the wife did not comply with the Matrimonial obligations as per the customs and conventions; Whether the appellant/wife had insulted the respondent/husband by stating that the respondent/husband is not capable of matrimonial life and this apart, the appellant/wife insulted the respondent/husband by using caste name. These all are the grounds raised by the respondent/husband, the First Appellate Court considered the evidence of PW1 at the time of Cross Examination and the same is as follows:

12. After hearing both sides, records were perused. A perusal of the evidence of PW1, at the time of cross examination, who would say as follows:

“TAMIL”

13. A Cursory reading of the above said evidence of PW1, at the time of cross examination would reveal the fact that it was the evidence of PW1 that after the marriage for 3 days there was no conjugal relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. After 3 days only, there was a conjugal relationship. The respondent did not co-operate for conjugal relationship with the petitioner for 3 days from the date of marriage. After the conjugal relationsh