JUDGMENT :

S.VAIDYANATHAN, G.JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.

This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 15.03.2016, passed in H.M.O.P.No.49 of 2015, on the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli, dissolving the marriage held between the appellant and the respondent.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The petition for divorce under Sections 13(1)(i-a) & 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed by the petitioner on the ground that he married the respondent on 31.05.2012 at Madurai Kalavasal, as per the Hindu rites and customs. The matrimonial home was set up at Chennai Velacherry. They lived as husband and wife for two months and thereafter, the respondent, under the pretext of her ill health, went to her parents home on 14.09.2012. Thereafter, on 28.09.2012, the respondent joined the petitioner's family to go to Tirupathi and after the visit to Tirupathi, within a week's time, the parents of the respondent came to Velacherry and quarreled with the petitioner and took the respondent back to Tirunelveli. After some reconciliation, the respondent joined the petitioner on 08.11.2012. The said reconciliation did not long-last. On 20.06.2013, the respondent was tested positive for pregnancy and was taken to her parents' house. Thereafter, there was no information about her health condition or contact with the petitioner. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner was unable to concentrate on his work due to the mental torture caused by the respondent and he was forced to resign his job. He came down to Madurai and joined his parents to look after the family business. On 25.02.2014, a male child was born to them. When the petitioner and his parents went to see the child, they were humiliated and sent out by the respondent's family. In the said circumstances, since the attempt for mediation and conciliation got failed, notice was exchanged between the parties and the petition for divorce was filed on the ground of cruelty.

4. The respondent wife filed a counter contending that at the time of marriage, there was a demand of dowry and after negotiation, the respondent agreed to give 75 soverign of gold and thereafter, the marriage was solemnized. The averments of temporary desertion and cruelty were stoutly denied by the respondent. It is specifically alleged in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was under the control of his mother and shattered her colourful dream about the matrimonial life. There was a misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner about his salary and financial status. The petitioner's family was heavily indebted and to clear the debts, the petitioner was spending all his income neglecting the respondent. Also, the petitioner had no interest in the matrimonial life and had sexual intercourse rarely with the respondent. Under the pressure of his parents, the petitioner resigned his job and taken up his family business, which was under the heavy loss and thereafter, he has chosen to ruin his future as well as the future of the respondent. 5. Before the Trial Court, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and 16 documents were marked on his support. On behalf of the respondent, apart from the respondent, three other witnesses were examined as R.W.1 to R.W.4. Ex.R1 reply notice of the respondent was marked as Ex.R1.

6. The Trial Court, on considering the evidence adduced by the parties, held that the witnesses examined by the respondent in support of her case, including her father, has not substantiated her case that she was ignorant of even the very basic facts of the marital relationship between her and the petitioner. Particularly, in respect of demand of rupees twenty lakhs to meet out the family debt, the respondent herself has retracted. Whereas, R.W.3 had spoken about it, which indicates and exposes the embellishment in respect of the debts of the petitioner and the demand of Rs.20 lakhs. The Trial Cour