The court established that mental cruelty, evidenced by the respondent's behavior, justified the dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT :

R.POORNIMA, J.

The appellant/petitioner/husband has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the fair order and decreetal order dated 31.10.2022 passed in HMOP No.24 of 2022 by the Family Court, Karur

2. Brief case of the petition before the lower Court is as follows:

(a) The petitioner submits that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 08.07.2001 in Konar Thirumana Mandabam, Thanthonimalai in Karur District, as per the customs prevailing in the Hindu Community and the marriage is still subsisting.

(b) The petitioner further stated that the marriage expenses have been equally borne by both the petitioner and respondent family. At the time of marriage, the petitioner provided 2 sovereigns gold for Mangalsutra and some gold jewels to the respondent. The respondent family provided some household articles and few gold ornaments to the petitioner, as per custom rituals for the marriage as seervarisai and the same is in the custody of the respondent.

(c) The petitioner further stated that after marriage, both were living in the matrimonial house for two years, after which they shifted to Rayanoor to a rented house from 2003 to 2004. Again, they shifted their house to Anna Nagar in Karur Town till 2013, till date both are residing in the same place.

(d) The petitioner further stated that from the date of marriage, the respondent was suspicious about the character of the petitioner. Due to the above, she developed hatred feeling against the petitioner and used to quarrel with him without any valid reason. The petitioner consoled her, with the hope that one day or another the respondent will realise and life will become harmonious. Whenever the respondent picked up quarrels, she used filthy language against the petitioner and threatened that she will go to any extent, blackmailed the petitioner and treated him cruely.

(e) The petitioner further stated that due to their lawful wedlock, two male children were born, namely, S.Sri Jith Kumar on 30.07.2002 at Iyerpadi Hospital at Valparai, Coimbatore District and S.Deva Darshan on 16.04.2006 at V.C Hospital, Karur. The petitioner spent the basic necessities, education fees, etc., for their children. The elder son is studying 8^th standard in Oxford Matriculation School, Udumalpet, and the second child is studying 4^th standard in Shri Sankara Vidyalaya Matriculation School, Karur.

(f) The petitioner further stated that now he is working in a textile viz., Master Linen Inca Private Concern, the respondent entered into the working place, caused inconvenience, and act adverse against the petitioner. The respondent keep quiet for few days and thereafter picking up quarrel for unnecessary reason and abused him with filthy language due to her suspicious character. The respondent had completed her Post Graduate course and working as a Development Manager in HDFC Bank earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- as monthly salary, she is also doing money laundering business and earning Rs.50,000/- per month towards interest. She is not giving respect to the petitioner and tortured him. Whenever the petitioner tried to convince her, she did not hear his words.

(g) The petitioner further stated that the respondent with the evil advice from her family picked up quarrel, uttered unwanted words and started giving complaint against the petitioner before the Police. The petitioner tried to convince the respondent, the Police Officials also advised the respondent to lead a happy life. The petitioner keeping in mind, the future life of the children tolerated the atrocities meted out to him by the respondent with the hope that she would change her character one day or other and live with him peacefully.

(h) All the efforts taken by him was in vein. The family members of the respondent also supported her, whenever a complaint was made by the respondent. The family members entered into the house of the petitioner with third part