The main legal point established in the judgment is that withdrawal from the matrimonial home without reasonable cause and failure to make meaningful attempts for reunion may amount to mental cruelty, justifying a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, to set aside the decree of divorce dated 29.04.2012 passed by the III Additional Family Court, Chennai in OP.No.749 of 2002.)

S. Sounthar, J.

1. The appellant/wife who suffered a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty has come up with this appeal.

2. According to the respondent/husband, the marriage between appellant and respondent took place on 19.10.1989 at Sri Rangam and through wedlock a male child by name M.R.Shrinivas (P.W.2) was born to them. After marriage, they started living together at Chennai. It was averred by the respondent/husband in his petition that appellant/wife ignored him and the child right from the beginning. It was also averred that his child was suffering from some kind of nervous problem and he used to get affected with “fits” frequently. The respondent/husband claimed that the appellant/wife failed to take care of the child properly and she had gone to the extent of inflicting heat shock on the child. There was also allegation that the appellant tried to commit suicide and threatened the respondent by pouring kerosene on her and tried to set her ablaze on three occasions. The respondent also claimed that the appellant failed to perform her regular duties as a wife and she never had shown any interest in domestic festivals and in attending any family functions. It was also alleged that the appellant deserted the respondent and his son and withdrew from the matrimonial home on her own without any reasonable cause and the respondent had not received any information from the appellant or from her family members regarding her whereabouts. On these pleadings, the respondent sought for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

3. The appellant had filed a counter denying various averments found in the petition for divorce filed by the respondent. The appellant in her counter statement denied the allegations of ill-treatment meted out to her son. She also specifically denied the attempts of self-immolation attributed against her in the petition of the respondent. She further averred that due to the illtreatment meted out to her by the respondent, she had gone to the extreme step on one occasion but having her child in mind she desisted from taking extreme step. The appellant claimed that unable to withstand the torture and mental cruelty at the hands of the respondent/husband, she had left the matrimonial home on 28.12.2001. After denying various allegations against her, she expressed her willingness to join the respondent/husband and sought for dismissal of the divorce petition.

4. Before the family Court, the respondent/husband was examined as P.W.1 and son of the parties was examined as P.W.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P16. On behalf of the appellant/wife she was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked on her side.

5. The Family Court after consideration of oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the respondent/husband entitled to divorce on the ground of cruelty. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/wife has come up with this appeal.

6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though allegations of adultery was made against the appellant and divorce was sought for on that ground also, the Family Court had granted divorce only on the ground of cruelty and hence, this appeal is confined to the question of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conclusion reached by the Family Court that the act of appellant in leaving the matrimonial home without taking into consideration the welfare of the child would cause mental cruelty to the respondent is untenable in law. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant withdrew from the matrimonial home only because of the ill-treatment by