The court emphasized the need for the respondent to prove the allegations of cruelty in order to be entitled to divorce, and highlighted the entitlement of the appellant to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in C.M.A.No.735 of 2021: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 to set aside the order of the V Additional Family Court, Chennai 13.03.2020 made in O.P.No.1145 of 2011 and praying to dismiss the O.P.No.1145 of 2011.

Prayer in C.M.A.No.733 of 2021: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 to set aside the order of the V Additional Family Court, Chennai dated 13.03.2020 made in O.P.No.1788 of 2011 and to allow the O.P.No.1788 of 2011.)        Common Judgment:

S. Sounthar, J.

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are arising out of fair and final order passed in O.P.No.1788 of 2011 and O.P.No.1145 of 2011 on the file of the V Additional Family Court, Chennai respectively.

2. The respondent/husband filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion in O.P.No.1145 of 2011 and the same was allowed by granting divorce on both the grounds. Aggrieved by the same, appellant /wife has come up with this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.735 of 2021. The appellant/wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in O.P.No.1788 of 2011 and the same was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, she had come up with this C.M.A.No.733 of 2021.

3. According to the respondent/husband in O.P.No.1145 of 2011, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28.11.2003. They started living together at Chennai. As a result of their wedlock, they got two sons who were born on 01.09.2004 and 04.08.2006. The respondent claimed that right from the inception, appellant/wife had the habit of suspecting the respondent-s fidelity, picking up quarrel for no reasons. Due to his work conditions respondent used to return to home at late night and appellant/wife used to suspect respondent/husband for retuning late in the night. The respondent claimed in his petition that he sent a letter dated 05.03.2008 to the appellant explaining to her the mental agony faced by him, due to the act of suspecting his character and also her nature of picking up frequent quarrel. It was stated that in his letter he advised to change her attitude and until then it was not possible for him to join in matrimonial life. According to the respondent, even after receipt of the said letter, the appellant neither preferred to change her attitude, nor preferred to sent a reply. But she deserted him on 31.03.2009, without informing him. The respondent/husband further stated that he filed H.M.O.P.No.3569 of 2009 for divorce before the Principal Family Court, Chennai and on receipt of the summons, as a counter blast, the appellant filed H.M.O.P.No.3585 of 2009 for restitution of conjugal rights before the same Court. Thereafter on advice of well wishers, both of them joined after withdrawing the respective petitions and they started living together. Thereafter, according to the respondent, appellant started threatening him that she would commit suicide after preparing a suicidal note that he was cause for her death. The respondent claimed that again appellant deserted him along with her children and consequently on 12.03.2011, he sent another notice through his Advocate to appellant but however the appellant had not responded with any reply. But strangely, appellant/wife started threatening respondent/husband that she would file a false dowry demand case by using her influence in police. It was also claimed that the appellant had filed a false criminal complaint alleging that the respondent had demanded dowry and also refused to return 40 sovereigns of gold jewels. The respondent/husband claimed that the appellant/wife had taken away all jewels and nothing was available with him. The respondent/husband claimed that the appellant/wife had been living separately, wantonly without any reasonable cause and hence guilty of deserting the respondent/husband. The respondent/husband also claimed that the marriage had broken down irretrievably and sought for divorce on the