The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation of the grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, particularly regarding cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The judgment also clarifies the legal standard for suppression and misrepresentation in divorce cases.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Fair order and Decreetal order dated 12.08.2014 made in HM.CMA.No.14 of 2012 on the file the I Additional District and Session Judge at Vellore, confirming the Fair Order and Decreetal Order dated 15.06.2011 in HMOP No.212 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vellore.)

1. The unsuccessful wife before the Court below has filed the above CMSA. The Second Appeal has been admitted on the following Substantial Questions of law:- "

a) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in grntig the relief u/s 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage? As against the originally relirf sught u/s 13(1)(ia) by the respondent.

b) Whether the subsequent handing over and admission of the respondent that he only had the gold jewels of the appellant under his custody will not amount to suppression and misrepresentation before the Court that the appellant has taken the same while leaving the house in the pleadings and in the evidence and the decree obtained by the said is valid or liable to be set aside for playing fraud on the Courts below?"

2. The facts in brief is hereinbelow narrated in order to answer the Substantial Questions of law that have been framed. The parties are referred to in the same rank as before the learned Sub Judge, Vellore.

3. The petitioner had filed H.M.O.P. No.212 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Judge, Vellore seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. It is his case that the marriage between him and the respondent had taken place on 05.03.2007 as per the customs and practice of their community at Vellore. The two of them had set up their matrimonial home along with his parents and brother. However right from the beginning, the respondent was very adamant and had an arrogant disposition. The respondent used to pick up quarrels at the drop of the hat and that apart, she did not show any respect to the petitioner or his parents.

4. The petitioner was a practicing advocate and would travel to Omalur and Salem every day. The parents of the petitioner were not keeping good health and the behavior of the respondent caused a great deal of stress upon them. The respondent used to stay in a neighbour’s house while at Salem. When the first Pongal was celebrated after their marriage at the respondent’s parents house, the respondent assaulted the petitioner and threatened to kill him and commit suicide. The petitioner was unable to handle the anger of the respondent and therefore he had decided to leave for Salem and therefore rushed to the Katpadi Railway station. The respondent followed him to the Railway station and created a ruckus at the station and went to the extent of grabbing the tickets from the hands of the Ticket Collector when it was shown for verification and tore it apart. This had humiliated the petitioner and had caused immense mental agony to him. The petitioner would submit that when he would prepare for a case, the respondent would come and throw away the case bundles and insist upon the petitioner watching television along with her. The respondent had on 06.01.2008 torn off some of his law books and case bundles. She used to also harass him during the Court hours by frequently calling him despite his request that he may not be disturbed during the Court hours. The petitioner would submit that another bone of contention between the two was the fact that he would return home past 7 O’ clock as he had to travel to Omalur and the respondent would insist that he returns home by 4 p.m.

5. On 10.01.2008, the respondent left the matrimonial home. Thereafter on 05.02.2008 her cousin by name Baskaran had requested the petitioner to take her back. On 02.07.2008, the respondent’s parents also requested the petitioner to take back the respondent, however, the petitioner expressed his inability to live with the respondent. Thereupon in the evening, the