IMPORTANT POINT
A divorce decree under the Hindu Marriage Act requires specific findings on cruelty; reliance on 'irretrievable breakdown' is not a valid ground.

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, praying to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in C.M.A. No. 1 of 2015 dated 11.11.2021 by the learned District Judge, Nagapattinam reversing the fair and decretal order passed in H.M.O.P. No. 71 of 2020 dated 26.11.2014 by the learned Sub Judge, Nagapattinam and allow the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

1. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment dated November 11, 2021 passed in C.M.A. No. 1 of 2015 by the 'learned District Judge, Nagapattinam' [henceforth 'First Appellate Court' for brevity] reversing the fair and decretal order dated November 26, 2014 passed in H.M.O.P. No. 71 of 2020 by the 'learned Sub Judge, Nagapattinam' [henceforth 'Trial Court' for brevity] the appellant – husband filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

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

Petitioner's case

3. The petitioner is the husband, and the respondent herein is the wife. According to the petitioner, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on August 31, 2007 as per Hindu Rites and Customs, as arranged marriage. Out of the wed-lock, a male child was born to them in the year 2008. Shortly after their marriage, the respondent began behaving in a rude manner towards the petitioner and often quarreled with the parents and relatives of the petitioner. Further, the respondent often left her matrimonial house and went to her parents' house and threatened the petitioner through rowdy elements. The respondent was forcing the petitioner to come and live with the respondent at her parents' house. Further, the respondent often shouted in the streets in a godly frenzy state, which is indicative of her potential mental issues. The respondent is in a relationship outside of marriage. The respondent’s family is doing some illegal arrack manufacturing business. The issue escalated when the respondent along with his sister's husband Shanumugavel came to the petitioner’s house and caused threat to the petitioner’s sister, brother and brother-in-law. Hence, the petitioner’s sister filed a complaint on the file of Kariyapattinam Police Station against the respondent and the petitioner's brother filed a complaint on the file of Chief Minister's Special Cell. The act of the respondent amounts to cruelty. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a petition seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the file of Sub Court, Nagapattinam.

Respondent's case

4. The respondent filed a counter wherein she denied the averments of the original petition and has averred that the petitioner demanded dowry and subjected her to cruelty. Further that the petitioner sold her jewelry and used the money for himself; that the petitioner treated her like a housemaid, refusing to provide her with basic necessities such as food, clothing, and security; that the petitioner’s family also inflicted cruelty upon her and defamed the respondent as if the respondent has relationship outside of marriage; that during her pregnancy, the petitioner physically assaulted her and forced her out of the house, after which he left for a foreign country. Further that, despite her numerous attempts to reconcile and live with the petitioner, he refused to accept her; that left with no other option, the respondent filed a police complaint against the petitioner; that during the police enquiry, the petitioner agreed to live with her but later did not honor his commitment; that considering the well-being of their son, the respondent is ready and willing to live with the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent prayed to dismiss the original petition.

5. At trial, on the side of the petitioner, the petitioner was examined as PW-1 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.3 were marked. Further, one Ramukannu was examined as PW-2. On the side of the respondent, the respondent was examined a