IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that in cases of divorce and restitution of conjugal rights, the court carefully considers the evidence of cruelty and the reasonableness of the party's actions to make a decision.

JUDGMENT :

K. Kumaresh Babu, J.

(Prayers in C.M.A.No.3141 of 2018:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal had been filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1955 against the common order dated 14.07.2018 passed in O.P.No.4741 of 2012 by the IInd Additional Family Court at Chennai and pass such further order.

In C.M.A.No.3142 of 2018:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal had been filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1955 against the common order dated 14.07.2018 passed in O.P.No.4627 of 2016 by the IInd Additional Family Court at Chennai and pass such further order.)

1. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant/husband as being aggrieved against the common order under which an application for divorce filed by him on the ground of cruelty under section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, had been dismissed and the O.P. Filed by the respondent/wife for Restitution of Conjugal Rights had been allowed.

2. The brief facts arising to this litigation is as follows:-

The marriage was solomonized between the appellant and the respondent on 21.08.2008 as per the Hindu rights and customs. After sometime into the relationship their had occurred various disputes between them where in the appellant husband had claimed that there was mental harassment/ cruelty on the part of the respondent wife as she had insisted upon the appellant to separate himself from his family, failing which she had been threatening with suicide. The same had been resisted by the wife by contending that it was the appellant husband who had been not only mentally torturing her but also physically abused her which led to the filling of various criminal cases by her and therefore she had also filed O.P. for restitution of conjugal rights on the claim that the appellant husband without any reasonable cause had deserted her.

3. Heard Mr.C.Shankar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs.C.Ramba, Party-in-Person for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submit that after the marriage had been solomonized and the parties started to live together, the respondent started to behave indifferently. She often used to pick up quarrel for no reasons whatsoever with him and his parents. He would further submit that since it was found that she had certain difficulty in conceiving a child, the appellant and also the respondent had jointly been taking medical treatment. He would submit the reports of the appellant as well suggest that there were no medical reasons on his side for begetting a child. He would further submit that the respondent was very adamant and had pressurized the appellant to disown his family namely his parents and demanded a separate house for their living. He would submit that in a vacant portion of the property the respondent had moved out and had been insisting the appellant to join her in the said portion.

5. He would further submit that since the appellant had not acceded to her request she had threatened to commit suicide and in fact she had even attempted to do so twice. Since, the claim of the respondent for a separate residence followed with threat of suicide had gone beyond control, the appellant had approached the family court seeking divorce under the ground of mental cruelty. He would submit that thereafter, the respondent had initiated criminal complaints against the appellant and his family members based upon false and frivolous allegations. He would submit that in fact one of the criminal complaint which included the sister of the appellant was quashed by the court in respect of his sister alone. This itself would indicate that the respondent had been making false and frivolous complaints even against the person who had no role to play in the family of the appellant. The conduct of the respondent was only to coerce the appellant to see that her demands are met. He would submit that the respondent had made various unsubstantiating claims as to the payment of monies for the construction of the house. He would submit that th