JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against the fair and decretal order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the Principal Family Court at Chennai, in O.P. Nos. 2674 of 2012 and 3106 of 2012 respectively.)

Common Judgment:

R. Mahadevan, J.

1. Both these appeals are filed by the appellant/husband, questioning the correctness and validity of the common order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the Principal Family Court, Chennai in O.P. Nos. 2674 and 3106 of 2012.

2. Before the Family Court, the respondent/wife filed O.P. No. 2674 of 2012 under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter shortly referred to as ''the Act'') praying to dissolve the marriage solemnised between her and the appellant herein on 27.08.1997 on the ground of cruelty. Whereas, the appellant/husband filed O.P. No. 3106 of 2012 for restitution of conjugal rights. By a common order dated 26.11.2018, the Family Court allowed the Original Petition filed by the respondent and thereby dissolved the marriage solemnised between the parties on 27.08.1997. Consequently, the Original Petition filed by the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed. This has given rise to the filing of these two appeals by the appellant/husband.

3. For effective adjudication of the issue involved herein, it is but necessary to brief the averments made in original petitions filed before the Family Court, which are as follows:

OP. No. 2674 of 2012

4. (i) The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 27.08.1997 at Vijayashree Mahal, Third Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040. According to the respondent, after the marriage, she resided along with the appellant and his parents. The appellant is always short-tempered and used to abuse the respondent for trivial and flimsy reasons. The appellant, claiming himself to be a forthright person, had always been ruthless in his comments and insensitive in his behavioural pattern towards the respondent. Even during the initial days of the marriage, he did not spend quality time with the respondent and he did not understand her likes and dislikes. Rather, the respondent was made to do all household chores in a joint family consisting of his parents-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law without providing her the basic comfort. Even though the parents of the respondent have made all arrangements for the marriage befitting their financial status, it was criticised by her in-laws often and thereby she was subjected to acute mental pain and sorrow. The parents-in-law of the respondent have also demanded more material goods and jewels soon after the marriage and it has come as a rude shock to the respondent. Whenever the appellant abused the respondent, the parents-in-law used to encourage the appellant to continue to abuse her without coming to her aid. Further, the appellant used to be on his own world of newspaper, television or with his friends on the phone and the rest of the time was spent on finding fault on the respondent.

(ii) The respondent further stated that after the marriage, whenever she visited her parents’ house along with the appellant, their parents have given a royal treatment for the appellant at all times of such visit, however, the appellant used to criticise the parents of the respondent for no reason and he used to call her siblings as deceitful, her relatives as arrogant and her parents as having attitudinal issues, etc. Further, the appellant also directed the respondent to stop having contact with her parents, siblings and relatives stating that they would spoil the reputation of the family of the appellant. By saying so, the respondent was not permitted to attend the incoming phone calls from her relatives. The family members of the appellant pretended as if they maintain their daughter-in-law well, but, in reality, they often interfered with the married life of the respondent with the appellant and thereby ruined it. According to the re