The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the appellant to provide sufficient evidence to prove allegations of cruelty and suppression of the earlier marriage in a divorce case.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act, against the judgment and decree in D.O.P.No.311 of 2014, on the file of the Principal District Court, Tuticorin, dated 22.10.2018, in dismissing the Original Application filed by the appellant, claiming grant of divorce under Sections 18 and 19 in the Indian Divorce Act.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the order, made in D.O.P.No.311 of 2014, on the file of the Principal District Court, Tuticorin, dated 22.10.2018, in dismissing the Original Application filed by the appellant, claiming grant of divorce under Sections 18 and 19 in the Indian Divorce Act. The appellant herein is the petitioner and respondent herein is the respondent in the main original petition.

2. Brief substance of the petition filed by the petitioner, in D.O.P.No.311 of 2014, is as follows:

2.1. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 09.07.2009. The entire expenses was borne by the petitioner. They have a son by name, Aron and a daughter by name, Snow. The respondent used to fight with the petitioner from the date of marriage. The petitioner was working in the Port and he used to come home in a tired stage. Without considering the stage of the petitioner, the respondent used to fight with him. She used to damage the Television remote, and the vessels. The petitioner was tolerating everything. The respondent used to go to her mother's house at Nagercoil, without informing the petitioner. Though the petitioner was working as a Cooli in the Port, he was maintaining the family in the proper manner. But, she never take care of the children, she used to spent huge amount for beauty parlour and for extravagant expenses. The respondent used to lodge false complaint against the petitioner. During the may – 2014, when the petitioner was visiting his father, who was admitted in Thoothukudi American Hospital, the respondent without informing the petitioner and without any reason, went to her parents house, even without locking the house and from that date onwards, the respondent and the petitioner were living separately. Though the petitioner called upon the respondent to come home, she is neglecting the same and she is not allowing the petitioner to see the children.

2.2. Since the Education of the elder child is affected, the petitioner sent a Lawyer notice on 12.07.2014. The respondent received the notice on 17.07.2014, but, she failed to send any reply. Subsequently, the respondent lodged a false complaint against the petitioner before the All Women Police Station, Thoothukudi. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the respondent was married to one Sugandar raj, S/o. Walter Fernandas and the marriage took place at the Anthoniyar Church, Kulasekarapattinam, on 03.07.2003. The marriage was not dissolved. The respondent suppressed the first marriage and married the petitioner on 09.07.2009. The factum of the earlier marriage was known to the petitioner only on 01.08.2014 and hence, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is to be declared as null and void.

3. Brief substance of the counter filed by the respondent, in D.O.P.No.311 of 2014, is as follows:

3.1. Both the petitioner and the respondent were already married. Both of them were aware of the earlier marriage. On the side of the petitioner, it was stated that the petitioner was working in the Ship and he was earning a lump sum amount. On the instigation of the parents of the petitioner, the respondent's parents gave 25 sovereigns gold jewels and Rs.30,000/- cash as dowry and Rs.50,000/- worth house hold articles. The respondent lived in the joint family of the petitioner. They demanded the respondent to do all the work, they would not allow her to take food in time. The petitioner is a drunkard. He used to harass the respondent physically.

3.2. Even after several months from the date of marriage, the petitioner was not going for any work and h