IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence to support claims of desertion and demand for dowry under the Hindu Marriage Act, and the impact of personal choices on marital relationships.

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 decreetal order and Fair order dated 04.02.2016 passed in C.M.A.No.41 of 2011 of the Principal District Judge, Dindigul and also set aside the decree and fair order dated 20.04.2011 passed in H.M.O.P.No.194 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul against the relief of divorce between the petitioner and the respondent as prayed for.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal has been preferred as against the decreetal and Fair order dated 04.02.2016 passed in C.M.A.No. 41 of 2011 of the Principal District Judge, Dindigul, confirming the decreetal and fair order dated 20.04.2011 passed in H.M.O.P.No.194 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.

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

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

4. The case of the petitioner:

(i) The respondent is the maternal uncle of the petitioner. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 05.03.1995 at Dindigul Narayana Iyer Marriage Hall, at Dindigul town in the presence of the parents of the respective parties, friends and relatives, according to the Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was adorned with 20 sovereigns of gold jewelry and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) worth home appliances including cot and almirah. Immediately, after marriage, the petitioner and the respondent commenced their matrimonial life in the shared matrimonial home at Sitharevu. After a span of time, the respondent voluntarily proposed to lead a separate independent life, as a result of which, they together left their family house and started to live separately at Sitharevu in another house. Very often, the respondent's maternal aunt visited the petitioner and the respondent. On her visits, she insisted the respondent that the petitioner has brought insufficient jewelry and other movable and immovable assets. The respondent never interfered with his aunts behavioural excesses for the reason that she actually brought him up from his childhood. Whenever the petitioner complained to the respondent about his aunt, the respondent/husband never bothered about the attitude of his aunt and he told the petitioner that it was her duty to adjust with her or she has to leave the house.

(ii) Every month atleast 25 days, the said aunt stayed with them and created a lot of rugs in the matrimony between the petitioner and the respondent. While so, on the guise of his employment, very often the respondent left the house and returned home after staying in outstations for several days. In the meanwhile, the petitioner got pregnant and was sent to her maternal home for delivery. Till her delivery, the respondent did not visit her maternal home even once. On 17.10.1997, a male child was born to the petitioner. Despite giving information to the respondent, he never turned up to visit the child even once. That apart, he did not even take any steps to take back his wife and son to their matrimonial home. Left with no other option, the petitioner's mother called for the interference of the elders and well wishers and she requested the respondent to take back the petitioner and her son to their matrimonial home. However, the respondent stated that 5 sovereigns would be provided for the child, thereafter, the respondent shall take the petitioner with him. The respondent deserted the petitioner for 9 years from 10.07.1997. All the efforts taken by the friends, relatives and elders in both the families for reconciliation between the petitioner and the respondent proved futile. Hence, the