JUDGMENT :

C. Saravanan, J.

1. By this common order, we are disposing both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by the appellant-wife. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed against Common Judgment and respective Decrees both dated 16.04.2019 passed by the VI Additional Family Court, Chennai passed in H.M.O.P. Nos. 3092 & 3613 of 2017.

2. By the impugned Common Judgment and the respective Decrees, the Family Court has allowed H.M.O.P. No. 3092 of 2017 filed by the respondent (husband) for dissolving the marriage solemnised between the appellant and the respondent on 16.06.2016 on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and dismissed H.M.O.P. No. 3613 of 2017 filed by the appellant (wife) under Section 9 of the said Act for restitution of conjugal rights.

3. The Family Court has concluded that the appellant was cruel to the respondent and therefore, the respondent was entitled for a decree of divorce and has thereby dissolved the marriage solemnised between them on 16.06.2016. H.M.O.P. No. 3613 of 2017 filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the said Act has been dismissed without much discussion perhaps on account of the Judgment and Decree in H.M.O.P. No. 3092 of 2017.

4. H.M.O.P. No. 3092 of 2017 was filed by the respondent for dissolving the marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 21.08.2017. It was filed within 14 months from the date of the marriage on 16.06.2016 and within 41 days from the birth of a female child on 11.07.2017 in a private hospital in Chennai.

5. In the petition filed by the respondent before the Family Court, the respondent alleged that the appellant has allegedly informed the respondent that she was not interested in the marriage and that the marriage was forced on her.

6. The respondent further alleged that the appellant declined physical intimacy and showed no interest even in physical touches during the initial days of the marriage.

7. The respondent further alleged that for the honeymoon, the respondent's parents had arranged a trip to Wayanad in Kerala between 26.06.2016 and 30.06.2016. However, during the trip, the appellant did not allow the respondent to even touch her and that the trip was shortened by a day as the appellant insisted on returning to Chennai on 29.06.2016.

8. The respondent further alleged that after they returned from their trip, the appellant and her family had forced respondent to undergo a potency test on 01.07.2016 and thereby, humiliated the respondent and same amounted to cruelty by the appellant.

9. It was further alleged that after the Medical Report was received on 02.07.2016, the family of the appellant felt that the appellant needs to be taken to Modi Baba Dargah so that she is not affected by any evil spirits.

10. Further allegation of the respondent before the Family Court in the aforesaid petition was that he verbally abused by the appellant's brother-in-law (sister's husband) who had earlier chided and teased the respondent as to whether he had seen any porn CDs before and if required, he would get him one so that the respondent will know how to enjoy his marital life.

11. The other allegations against the respondent were that during a quarrel in July 2016, the appellant informed the respondent that the respondent was not like her ex-lover and that she was not interested in matrimonial life and was willing to agree for a divorce by a mutual consent.

12. The main allegation of the respondent against the appellant before the Family Court was that the appellant had acted cruelly against the respondent in her conduct by denying him marital bliss of sex for a period of 43 days from the date of their marriage and that the marriage was consummated only in Tirupati during the last week of July, 2016 against his wishes though they had gone to Tirupati Temple as pilgrims and not as tourist or for their honeymoon. The respondent alleged that he was shocked as he was forced to have intercourse with appella