Desertion without reason or consent can constitute mental cruelty, and the filing of criminal cases by a spouse alleging dowry harassment constitutes mental cruelty.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 r/w Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dindigual in C.M.A.No.41 of 2019 dated 23.02.2022, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Vedasandur in H.M.O.P.Nos.38 of 2015 and 23 of 2019 dated 12.09.2019.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2022 passed in C.M.A.No.41 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2019 passed in H.M.O.P.Nos.38 of 2015 and 23 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Vedasandur.

2. The appellant is the respondent in H.M.O.P.No.38 of 2015 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Vedasandur.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as petitioner/husband and respondent/wife as arrayed in H.M.O.P.No.38 of 2015 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Vedasandur.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. They developed love each other and their marriage was solemnized on 22.01.1999. As love marriage, dowry and other seer articles were not given and marriage was taken place in a simple manner. They lived few years at Chatrapatti, Nagampatti and finally at petitioner’s house situated at Pallapatti of Palapatti village. Thereafter from the year 2005, the respondent used to make frequent quarrel with the petitioner insisting him as her house bride. The petitioner maintained tolerance considering the family''s welfare. Then at the instance of petitioner, as his maternal aunt had no issue, she settled her properties in favour of the respondent. After gift of properties, the respondent changed her attitude and drove away his aunt. The respondent obtained loan of Rs.7 lakhs from one Ganesan of Vedasandur and did not repay the same and hence the said Ganesan tortured the petitioner to repay the loan. While so, in the year 2014 the petitioner came to know that the respondent already married one Palanisamy and without leading life with him and without getting any divorce from him, the respondent married a second time with the petitioner. The respondent suppressed her first marriage. When the petitioner asked about her first marriage, the respondent left the matrimonial home and went to her parental house. The petitioner along with his elders and well-wishers, made a compromise talk with the respondent, but the respondent refused to return back and neglected the petitioner. The respondent further continued harassment over the petitioner. The respondent gave a police complaint before the All Women Police Station, Vadamadurai against the petitioner and his family members alleging dowry demand. The police officials enquired the complaint and advised the respondent to live with the petitioner as the complaint has no true facts. But, the respondent continued to harass and torture the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed the petition in H.M.O.P.No.38 of 2015 against the respondent seeking divorce.

5. It is the case of the respondent that the respondent admits the love affairs and her marriage is a love marriage with the petitioner and that they lived few years as stated in the petition. Due to misunderstanding and ill advice of his men, the petitioner filed the petition for divorce. They have no issues out of wedlock. The respondent with her own income purchased a house site and constructed a house on obtaining loan of Rs.10 lakhs from Rajendran of Thanthondrimalai. After construction of house, the petitioner drove away the respondent from the house on 01.06.2014. The respondent is now residing with her parental home. The petitioner is bounden duty to maintain the respondent. The petitioner is trying to get second marriage with another woman and hence, the respondent lodged a police compla