JUDGMENT :

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the husband, who was an unsuccessful offender to get his marriage dissolved before the Family Court, Madurai.

2. The brief facts leading to this appeal is that, the appellant herein married the respondent on 15.02.2009 as per the marriage law governing Christian and a male child was born to them, on 21.01.2010. Both the parties are well employed as Teacher and there was no financial issue between them. However, the appellant was uncomfortable due to the alleged conduct of the respondent, who used to compare the other male members with the appellant and talk in demeaning manner. At one point of time, they got separated and the respondent along with minor boy went to her parents house. Narration of certain incidents by the appellant was insulting in nature, in view of the appellant. Hence, a petition for divorce filed on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the appellant.

3. To be noted, the petition for divorce was filed within 1 ½ years of the marriage. The said petition was contested by the respondent stating that she has never caused cruelty and in fact, she is always ready and willing to live with her husband, only due to the interference of the respondent’s family members, she is unable to live with her husband. For her safety and security of the minor boy, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home.

4. Before the Family Court, the appellant and two other witnesses were examined and 8 exhibits were marked. On the side of the respondent, she mounted the witness box subjecting herself for cross-examination.

5. The Family Court has disbelieved the case of the appellant, regarding cruelty and also has attributed that the separation was due to the conduct of the appellant and thus, dismissed the divorce petition.

6. The judgment and decree of the Family Court is impugned in this appeal on the ground that the Court below has not properly appreciated the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3. These two witnesses had spoken about the cruelty faced by the appellant, however their evidence totally ignored. Further, it is stated that the respondent had influenced the police when the divorce petition was pending. The appellant was asked to appear before the police on her complaint and in the Police Station, he was ill-treated. In this regard, the appellant gave a complaint to the Higher Officials viz., the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai. These facts were not taken into consideration by the Court below.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/husband submit that the respondent has also initiated proceedings before the learned Judicial Magistrate cum Additional District Magistrate, Manamadurai, in Cr.No. 5357 of 2012 under the Domestic Violence Act, alleging threat to her life and for maintenance. The conduct of the respondent when pending divorce petition is manifestation of cruelty, which is evident through Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5, which were not given due consideration by the Court below.

8. Finally, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner citing the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court submitted that separation for a long period also tantamount to cruelty which is a ground to dissolve the marriage to avoid other social evil and in this case, the question of cruelty coupled with prolonged separation since 2010 may be considered for dissolving the marriage.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife would submit that the respondent is a devouted Christian had never sought for dissolving the marriage and she is always ready and willing to join with her husband. It is the appellant, who adamantly refused the proposal of reunion, when it was suggested to him during the cross examination. For flimsy reason, the appellant has deserted his wife and his minor son. He has also categorically stated in his deposition that he is not interested to have the custody or visitation of his son. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that th