The court emphasized that long separation and false allegations alone do not establish irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and each case must be considered based on its own facts and circumstances.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2015 made in F.C.H.M.O.P.No.2 of 2014 (M.O.P.No.39 of 2009) on the file of the Sub Court, Dharmapuri.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/husband challenging the order dated 11.03.2015, dismissing the F.C.H.M.O.P.No.2 of 2014 (M.O.P.No.39 of 2009) filed by him for dissolution of marriage.

2. The appellant/husband filed F.C.H.M.O.P.No.2 of 2014 (earlier M.O.P.No.39 of 2009) on the file of the Sub Court, Dharmapuri for dissolution of marriage conducted on 17.08.1997 between him and the respondent. According to the appellant, at the time of marriage, he was working in a Private concern and subsequently, he got appointed in the Dharmapuri Municipality. From the date of marriage, the respondent was not having cordial relationship with the appellant and his family members. The respondent abused the appellant and his mother and insisted for having a separate matrimonial home. Even after establishing separate matrimonial home, the respondent did not change her attitude. The respondent, without knowledge of the appellant, gave 7 Sovereigns of her jewels to one Gnanasekaran, her sister's husband. When the appellant asked the respondent to get back the 7 Sovereigns of jewellery from her brother-in-law, on 20.12.2006, the respondent, her parents, sister and brother-in-law came to the work place of the appellant and abused him in filthy language in the presence of his colleagues and threatened to give false complaint of dowry harassment against the appellant. Again, when the appellant asked the respondent to get back the jewels given to her brother-in-law, she shouted at him, threw household articles on him, left the matrimonial home and went to her parents' house at Krishnagiri. The appellant pacified the respondent and brought her to the matrimonial home. Again, during April, 2007, when the appellant asked the respondent about the jewels, she informed her parents, her sister, sister's husband and relatives and created a scene in front of the house of the appellant. The respondent shouted at the appellant that she is not willing to live with him and she will have relationship with somebody else and live happily and left. On 16.04.2007, the respondent gave a false complaint before the All Women Police Station, Dharmapuri, against the appellant, his mother, sister and brother, alleging dowry harassment. The Police enquired the complaint and found that the same is false and advised the respondent. Immediately, the respondent shouted at the appellant stating that she will kill him by poisoning and get compassionate appointment and live luxurious life. Subsequently, the respondent informed the appellant that she is not willing to live with the appellant, got Rs.3,00,000/- from him and left the matrimonial home in the month of June, 2007 along with the children and got Transfer Certificate from the School. When the respondent deserted the appellant in the month of June, 2007, he tried to reconcile through elders. The respondent and her family members abused the elders and refused to join the appellant in matrimonial home. Suppressing the receipt of Rs.3,00,000/- from the appellant, the respondent filed M.C.No.15 of 2007 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Krishnagiri and obtained order. The appellant has filed an appeal challenging the said order. The respondent, with a view to get the appellant dismissed from his service got him arrested and appellant has come out on bail. Due to the above facts, the appellant suffered mental tension and cruelty and felt that it is not safe to live with the respondent any longer. The respondent deserted the appellant from the month of June, 2007 and appellant and respondent are living separately from that date onwards and respondent has given false complaint against the appellant and his family members. Due to the above act of the re