Point of Law: It is obligation of Court and all concerned that the marriage status should, as far as possible, as long as possible and whenever possible, be maintained, but when marriage is totally dead, in that event, nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied forever to a marriage which in fact has ceased to exist

Judgment :-

(Prayer: Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the common judgment and decree dated 08.11.2012 passed in H.M.C.M.A.Nos.5 & 6 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore District, confirming the common judgment and decree dated 12.04.2006 passed in M.O.P.Nos.90 & 91 of 2003 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Vellore.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

2. These two civil miscellaneous second appeals are directed against the concurrent findings of facts reached by both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court repeatedly refusing to grant divorce in favour of the appellant/husband and granting restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the respondent/wife.

3. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the appeals are stated as follows:-

The appellant is a retired Bank Officer. He married the respondent on 10.2.89 at Sholinghur, Vellore District as per the Hindu rites and customs. Out of the wedlock, a male child was born on 26.11.89. During the pregnancy, it was alleged that in spite of the doctor’s advice as well as the advise of the appellant, the respondent/wife had not taken proper care. Although the respondent had undergone the scan procedure, the result thereof with regard to the health of the child was concealed, ultimately the respondent delivered a handicapped male child. It was further alleged that the respondent/wife was behaving in an adamant manner and she is a severe sugar and blood pressure patient and the same were purposefully suppressed by her and her family members with an ulterior motive. It was also further alleged that from the date of marriage, the respondent was adamantly raising disputes and quarrels even for cohabitation, as a result, the appellant underwent mental agony, that cannot be expressed in words, hence, the appellant, who is of soft nature, was not able to lead a happy matrimonial life with the respondent. On the contrary, the respondent was in the habit of threatening the appellant in a cruel manner causing not only stress, strain and mental agony, but also lot of worries and unpleasantness to the appellant. Many times the respondent used to raise quarrels and would throw vessels and articles on the appellant’s face and this behaviour of the respondent became a routine affair from the beginning of the marriage. Although the appellant tolerated all the unlawful activities of the respondent on the belief that she would change her attitude in due course, no improvement thereon had occurred. In the meanwhile, subsequent to the delivery of the male boy, the appellant was transferred to Coimbatore. It was also pleaded that the appellant had given good treatment to his son in various hospitals at Coimbatore including one of the famous hospitals, namely, Telungupalayam Hospital. But there was no improvement in his son’s health. This apart, on many occasions, the respondent had gone to the extent of having kerosene etc., with her and by way of closing the door of the room, she used to give threats of suicide. Although the appellant was transferred to Coonoor, he used to visit the house in alternate days for providing treatment to his son, but the respondent continued her unlawful activities and never cooperated with the appellant. At one point of time, the mental agony, stress, strain caused by the respondent’s behaviour went out of control, but considering the health condition of his son, he tolerated her insults. However, the respondent, taking advantage of the ill-health of her mother, left the matrimonial home on 5.4.95 to her parental home informing the appellant that she would come back after a month. Thereafter, the appellant visited her parents house more than 50 times and in addition, the appellant’s parents also visited the respondent