The main legal point established in the judgment is the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a weighty circumstance necessitating the severance of marital ties.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2021 in O.P.Nos.1566 of 2018 and 1084 of 2019 on the file of the learned VII Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.)

Common Judgment

V. Sivagnanam, J.

1. O.P.No.1566 of 2018 was filed by the respondent before the VII Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai for dissolution of marriage, whereas the appellant filed O.P.No.1084 of 2019 for restitution of conjugal rights.

2. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 29.06.2015 at Thirupathy Thirumana Mahal, Aaladi Pillaiyar Koil Street, Kancheepuram, according to Hindu rites and customs is not in dispute. The respondent sought the relief of dissolution of marriage, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. According to the appellant, his wife left the matrimonial home and deserted him without any valid reason.

3. During the trial, the respondent has examined herself as P.W.1 and marked four documents(Ex.P.1 to Ex.P4) with one C.D (M.O.1). The appellant gave evidence as R.W.1 and marked three documents (Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3). The Family Court, after considering the evidence produced by the parties, allowed the petition filed by the respondent/wife by granting divorce and dismissed the petition filed by the appellant/husband for restitution conjugal rights. Aggrieved by these orders, the appellant is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant, made the following submissions:-

The trial Court has not properly considered the evidence adduced by the appellant. The allegation that the marriage was not consummated is false. The respondent/wife is not interested with her husband, it is established through cross examination. The allegation of cruelty towards the appellant has not been proved by the respondent. The appellant has filed restitution of conjugal rights, which reflects his intention to live with his wife. The trial Court erred in dissolving the marriage, on the ground that the marriage has been irretrievably broken down and reiterated other grounds raised in the grounds of appeal and thus pleaded to set aside the order passed by the Family Court.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent/wife urged that the wife sufficiently proved the cruel treatment of the appellant/husband and his family members and the same was elucidated through the evidence of appellant that he has disaffection towards the respondent/wife by frequently saying about her deformity of face and wound her feelings. The trial Court rightly observed that the parties are living separately without any reason, at the last stage, the respondent/wife filed the divorce petition to save her life. After the divorce granted by the trial Court, she remarried one Paneer Selvam on 13.12.2021 at Thiruporur Murugan Temple. Under these circumstances, there is no possibility for re-union and thus supported the order of the trial Court and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

6. Heard both sides.

7. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available materials on record.

8. Admittedly, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 29.06.2015 at Thirupathy Thiruman Mahal, Aaladi Pillaiyar Koil Street, Kancheepuram, as per the Hindu rites and customs. The appellant and respondent were initially resided in the matrimonial home at Kancheepuram for a week. Thereafter, due to Aadi month, the respondent went to her parent's home at Avadi, Chennai. After Aadi month, the appellant brought her back to his home at Pattukottai where he was working. This fact is not disputed.

9. The case of the respondent is that the appellant has not shown any love and affection towards her. When they were living in Pattukottai, the appellant used to call his friends and put the phone in speaker and forced her to hear their speech pertaining to sex, which caused embarrassment to