JUDGMENT :

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Wife, Jamuna Rani, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the Family Court, Tiruppur in H.M.O.P. No. 7 of 2020, thereby allowing the petition for divorce filed by the respondent/husband Mr. Subramaniam, on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. The case of the respondent/husband is that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13.03.2013 and that they lived together only for a period of about two months. During this period, the respondent behaved abnormally and that she was mentally disturbed and would stand all alone speak loudly, laugh and go out of the house and act as if she was speaking to somebody. When the husband approached her for physical relationship she refused by saying that her parents would beat her if he touches her. The marriage was never consummated and upon confrontation, the wife's parents took her away from the matrimonial home and thereafter since she did not return inspite of attempts by the husband, the husband finally issued legal notice, dated 25.05.2013 and thereafter filed the petition for divorce.

3. The respondent wife, was initially set exparte and with a delay of two years she filed a petition for setting aside the exparte decree which was allowed and thereafter she filed a counter denying that she was psychologically disturbed and submitted that even before the marriage the husband had purchased her a cellphone and both were talking continuously which would go to show that things were normal between them. Though she behaved like every other dutiful wife, she was sent back to her parents house and that she was always willing to live with the petitioner and no grounds exist to dissolve the marriage between them.

4. Since the efforts of counseling the parties and resolving the matrimonial conflict did not yield any positive result, the Family Court had no other option than to proceed with the trial. The husband examined himself as PW-1 and one Chinanasamy was examined as PW-2 and Exs-P1 – P5 were marked on his side. The wife examined herself as DW-1 and no documents were marked on her side.

5. The Family Court, after considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, held that non-consummation of marriage even during the initial period of two months of living together by the parties amounted to cruelty on the husband. The trial court found that the respondent wife's conduct in taking contradictory stand in respect of receipt of legal notice and issue of reply notice making the evidence of the husband reliable. Further her conduct in admitting that he was in a depressed state and leaving the matter exparte and filing the setting aside application after two years and seeing the husband only in the Court after 5 years all cumulatively were taken into consideration to hold that her conduct amounted to cruelty on the husband and the prayer of the respondent/husband for divorce was granted. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed before this Court.

6. Heard Ms. Dhanwanthi, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Thiruvengadam, the Learned Counsel for the respondent. The Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the respondent husband has miserably failed to prove that the appellant wife had any mental disorder. The wife got into the box and was cross examined in detail. She was talking to the husband over phone even before marriage. She had studied upto Diploma in Teacher Education and there is nothing on record to suggest that she was suffering from any mental disorder. She was sent back within 60 days and there is absolutely no ground whatsoever to dissolve the marriage between the parties who are young and reunion is very much possible and the Family Court ought not to have granted the divorce.

7. The Learned Counsel for the respondent/husband would submit that only because all was not well with her, even after the case she was feeling shy to app