The court affirmed that without established evidence of cruelty, a decree of divorce cannot be granted, highlighting the necessity of proving such allegations for marital dissolution.

JUDGMENT :

J. NISHA BANU, J.

Both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been directed against the Common fair and decreetal order dated 15.03.2022 passed in O.P.Nos.307 and 308 of 2020.

2. The learned Judge, Family Court, Perambalur, dismissed the Original Petition filed by the appellant/husband, which was filed for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 and allowed the Original petition filed by the respondent/wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955.

3. The case of the appellant/husband is that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 01.06.2014. He is working as a doctor in Government hospital at Cuddalore. As a result of the wedlock, a girl child named Darshini was born on 27.06.2015. At the time of marriage, the respondent/wife's parents gave 75 sovereigns of gold jewellery to her. Also, made a deposit of Rs.7,00,000/- in his name and the appellant/husband gave the respondent/wife of about 5.5 sovereigns of gold jewellery and both of them were leading a happy life. Thereafter, several upheavals in the matrimony surfaced within few days. Later on 12.12.2015, the respondent/wife took back all of the things given to her, by issuing a receipt to the appellant. From then the respondent/wife had been harassing the appellant for no reasons.

4. It is also the case of the appellant/husband that respondent/wife had been forcing him to set up a separate house for them to live, for which the appellant had also agreed and both of them moved into a house located in Velmurugan Nagar, Pathirikuppam, Cuddalore where they had been living since 01.11.2015.

5. Despite the appellant/husband fulfilling all the requirements of the the respondent/wife, she had threatened the appellant in attempting to commit suicide. The respondent/wife had never performed her duties as wife and that she even threatened to give poisoned food to the appellant. Despite the appellant/husband's efforts to change the behaviour of the respondent, his attempts were in vain. Therefore, the appellant/husband having no other recourse, had filed the petition seeking divorce under Section 13(i-a)((i-b) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955.

6. During the pendency of this Original petition, the respondent/wife also filed O.P.No.307 of 2020 under Section 9 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

7. The brief averments in the O.P filed by the respondent/wife is that on the day of marriage, a 2 sovereign gold bracelet was given to the appelant/husband, and the entire cost of the marriage was accepted by the respondent/wife's parents. They also gave her 75 sovereign gold ornaments, and the marriage was conducted at a cost of Rs.7,00,000/-. Additionally, her parents purchased all the household appliances etc. It is stated that the brass utensils and furniture were given as per the request of the appellant/husband at a cost of Rs. 2,00,000/-. After the marriage, she lived with the appellant/husband's parents as a joint family in Neyveli, as his father was working there. After that, the appellant had a separate residence at Egmore, Chennai for five months due to his work and diploma studies. During that time, the respondent/wife's father regularly provided the necessary household items every month.

8. The Appellant's parents were not willing to take the respondent and the child back home. At that time, arrangements were being made for appellant's brother's remarriage. Since the respondent/wife was in poor health and had a two-month-old baby, she refused to attend the said wedding. However, she