IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove allegations of cruelty and desertion in divorce cases, and the consideration of the parties' willingness to reconcile as a factor in determining the outcome of the case.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with U/S 100 of CPC, to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 07.01.2016 made in C.M.A.No.11 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Karur confirming the fair and final order dated 07.11.2014 made in H.M.O.P.No.57 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Judge, Kulithalai.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 07.01.2016 made in C.M.A.No.11 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Karur confirming the fair and final order dated 07.11.2014 made in H.M.O.P.No.57 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Judge, Kulithalai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred herein as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The petitioner/husband filed a petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner/husband and the respondent/wife by decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

4. The case of the petitioner:

(i) The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was held on 09.02.1992 at Veeragoundampatti at the residence of the petitioner, in the presence of the family members and elders of the respective parties, friends and relatives as per Hindu Rites and Customs. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was serving as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force. The couple was blessed with a son in the year 1994 and he was named Venkudu Samy. Since the petitioner was working in North India/distant place, every year he used to visit his native for 10 to 20 days. At times, he even availed one month leave for visiting his native. Since the petitioner was placed in North India at the time of marriage, the respondent never resided in the petitioner's house along with his parents at Veeragoundampatti. On the other hand, the petitioner usually visited the respondent in her maternal home, whenever he arrived to his native during vacation. Considering the fact that the petitioner had been in a far away place for his job, he also never objected to the respondent's attitude of staying in her maternal home. However, every time he requested the respondent to visit his parents very often.

(ii) The petitioner had regularly sent money to the respondent and had directed her to give a proposition of the same to his parents. However, the respondent neither visited his parents nor gave any money which he had sent for them. That apart, whenever the petitioner's parents came to the respondent's maternal home for visiting their grandson, the respondent spoke filthy language and chased them away from her maternal home. All these attitudes of the respondent caused mental agony to the petitioner. To the culmination of the all during February 1993, the respondent lodged dowry complaint as against the petitioner before the Trichy All Women Police Station at Mannarpuram. On proper enquiry by the Inspector of Police at All Women Police Station which was concluded that the petitioner had not committed any mistake and on that basis, the complaint of the respondent was closed. However, on request made by the respondent all the dowry including Thali Chain was handed over to the respondent before the All Women Police Station and the home appliances belonging to her were also returned and on receipt of the same, the respondent duly gave in writing and continued to live in her maternal home. Even after such a situation, the petitioner had been very patient with the respondent. The respondent had never treated him with kindness and respect whenever he visited during vacation. While the petitioner was serving at Arunachal Pradesh, he initiated a conciliation through friends and relatives, so as to take the respondent and his child along with him to Arunachal Pradesh. However, the respondent even refused to accept such prop