Long separation and absence of cohabitation constitute cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, justifying divorce.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree of the learned 3^rd Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, dated 21.09.2016 in H.M.C.M.A.No.26 of 2015 by confirming the Judgment and Decree of the Subordinate Judge, Sankarankoil in H.M.O.P.No.44 of 2014 dated 14.07.2015.

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 / wife filed a petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.44 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Sankarankovil on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. The same came to be dismissed by the order of the said learned Trial Court on 14.07.2015. An appeal was preferred in H.M.C.M.A.No.26 of 2015 by the petitioner before the 3^rd Additional District Judge's Court at Tirunelveli and the learned 1^st Appellate Court found it unnecessary to interfere with the verdict of the learned Trial Court and dismissed the H.M.C.M.A.No.26 of 2015 on 21.09.2016. Challenging the same, the appellant is before me in this case.

4. The petitioner was earlier married and was divorced by mutual consent. Similarly, the respondent husband was also previously married and his first wife has passed away. Following which, the parents of the respective parties arranged a marriage between the petitioner as well as the respondent on 14.06.2010. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent husband was held at Sri Ganapati Mahal in the presence of friends and relatives on 14.06.2010. At the time of marriage, the respondent husband was working at a call center in Bangalore functioning under the company, namely, IBM. The petitioner is also employed and she is the manager in Indian Oil Corporation.

5. The factum of the first marriage of the petitioner with one Nalla Samy, S/o.Veeranam, Thummakundu Village, Usilampatti, Madurai District, was well informed to the respondent even before their marriage was arranged by the elders of both the parties. The respondent showed less interest in consummating the marriage and he avoided consummation for the first few weeks for the reason that he was tired due to the various work in which he was engaged relating to their marriage. The petitioner believing his words, was patient enough to take forward her matrimony with the respondent with peace and calm. Within a week of their marriage, the petitioner and the respondent moved to a rental house at Bangalore where the petitioner was residing.

6. However, the respondent avoided coming home during nights explaining that he was engaged in night duties and returned home only during daytimes when the petitioner had been away from home for her job and even before the petitioner could reach her home after job, the respondent willfully left the matrimonial home citing his working conditions. While so, all of a sudden, the respondent informed that he had resigned his job in IBM. Thereafter the respondent contacted the bank officials in which the petitioner availed a loan and sent a mail to them informing that he is likely to divorce the petitioner at the earliest, causing untold mental agony to the petitioner. Despite the petitioner's best efforts to conciliate with the respondent and to consummate her marriage with her husband, the respondent had been reluctant to consummate their marriage and had been irresponsible and commenced compelling the petitioner to fund him for commencing a new business. The petitioner's non cooperation in financing his business had further aggravated the indifferences between the petitioner and the respondent.

7. The respondent went to the extent of threatening the petitioner that he videographed the petitioner while she was changing her dress in her bedroom and further threatened her that he would upload the same in social media. As a result of which, the situation in the life of the petitioner and respondent had reached a point of no return and t