IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that allegations of mental cruelty and adultery must be proven, and divorce cannot be granted on the ground of irretrievable break-down of marriage without statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

P. VELMURUGAN, J.

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2017, in C.M.A. No. 12 of 2012 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Tiruvannamalai, confirming the fair and final order dated 01.08.2012 in H.M.O.P. No. 107 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai.

1. The appellant herein is wife and the respondent herein is her husband.

2. The respondent has filed petition for divorce in H.M.O.P. No. 107 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai. After enquiry, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge granted divorce against the wife. Challenging the same, the appellant/wife filed an appeal before the District Court, Tiruvannamalai in C.M.A. No. 12 of 2012. The learned District Judge, after hearing the appeal, dismissed the same, confirming the order of divorce granted by the trial Court. As against the judgment rendered in C.M.A. No. 12 of 2012 by the first appellate Court, the present C.M.S.A. is filed by the wife.

3. In the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant raised the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the respondent/husband had discharged his initial burden of proving that the appellant/wife had inflicted mental cruelty on the husband and her separation was voluntary, as contemplated under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act?

(ii) Whether both the Courts below were right in holding that allegations of adultery in counter statement of wife, per-se, inflicts mental cruelty?

(iii) Whether the lower Court is right in holding that acquittal in criminal proceedings initiated by wife against husband, is a ground for divorce, when the proof required for criminal proceedings is “beyond reasonable doubt” and contrary to civil proceedings?

(iv) Whether the Courts below are right in granting a decree for divorce on the ground of irretrievable break-down of marriage without any statutory sanctions?

4. Though on the earlier occasion, this Court has not formulated any substantial question of law, however, after hearing the arguments and on a perusal of the records, including the grounds of the present appeal, this Court now formulates the above said four substantial questions of law for deciding this appeal, as extracted supra.

5. The case of the respondent-husband is that their marriage was solemnized on 24.10.2005 and the appellant was living with the respondent only for a short while. She left the matrimonial home without any valid reasons. Therefore, the respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P. No. 31 of 2007 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, and the petition was pending and due to intervention of Panchayatdars, the appellant agreed to live with the respondent/husband and he took the appellant and hence, he withdrew H.M.O.P. No. 31 of 2007 for restitution of conjugal rights. Thereafter, within a day, she again left the matrimonial home without any valid reason from the respondent/husband and from the date of marriage, she was not interested to live with the husband and she frequently left the matrimonial home and moved to her parental house and she also never gave respect to his parents. Therefore, the appellant/wife filed a petition in H.M.O.P. No. 107 of 2009 for divorce.

6. It is the further case of the respondent that the appellant/wife gave a complaint against the respondent/husband for demand of dowry and also physical and mental cruelty, to the Police and also made allegation that the respondent/husband is leading adulterous life and the appellant/wife is also not interested to live with her, as she caused mental cruelty. Both the trial Court and the first appellate Court, rightly appreciated the evidence and granted divorce. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent relie