Normal marital disagreements and the presence of in-laws do not constitute mental cruelty sufficient for divorce. The petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to support claims.

JUDGMENT :

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

The parties herein got married on June 14, 2017, according to Hindu rites and customs. Some disputes arose between the couple. Consequently, on August 18, 2020, the husband filed a petition under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the ‘ HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955’ [‘H.M. Act’ for short] before the Principal Sub Judge, Trichy against his wife praying to dissolve the marriage between them, and on October 28, 2020, the wife filed a petition in O.P.No.2395 of 2020 under Section 9 of the H.M. Act before the 'I Additional Family Court, Chennai' ('the Family Court' for short) praying for restitution of conjugal rights. The petition filed by the husband was later transferred to the Family Court and renumbered as O.P.No.3713 of 2021. Joint trial was conducted. On the side of the wife, wife was examined as P.W.1 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.9 were marked. On the side of the husband, the husband was examined as R.W.1 and Ex-R.1 to Ex-R.4 were marked. The Family Court eventually ruled in favour of wife by way of a Common Judgment and Decree dated December 13, 2022. Challenging the same, the husband has preferred these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

2. For the sake of convenience, henceforth, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the Family Court in O.P.No.3713 of 2021 i.e., the husband will be referred to as the petitioner and the wife as the respondent.

PETITIONER’S (HUSBAND) CASE

3. Case of the petitioner is that the marriage between the petitioner (husband) and the respondent (wife) took place on June 14, 2017, according to Hindu rites and customs. The respondent’s parents had rented a house at Nandanam even before the marriage and insisted the petitioner to begin their matrimonial life there. Accordingly, the couple moved into the rented house after marriage. Two months into the marriage, the respondent without any intimation to the petitioner, brought in her aunt and later her parents. This resulted in loss of privacy to the petitioner.

3.1. The petitioner is running his own software company, M/s. Xenovex Technologies Pvt. Ltd., with about 100 employees in Vadapalani, Chennai. When he requested to move closer to his office, the respondent refused insisting to live along with her parents at the Nandanam House. This caused hardship to the petitioner.

3.2. Meanwhile, the first floor of the Nadhanam House became vacant and the petitioner wanted to move into it along with the respondent. But the respondent’s parents moved into the first floor citing good ventilation. Thereafter, the petitioner attempted to live peacefully with the respondent in the ground floor. However, the respondent was arrogant and quarrelsome. Further, the respondent was avoiding physical intimacy with the petitioner.

3.3. The respondent is not ready and willing to give birth to a child. Whenever the petitioner insisted on having a child, the respondent gave one reason or another for not having children of their own, instead suggesting adopting a child. The respondent is always concerned about her physique and is not at all ready to give birth to a child, while the petitioner and his family are very eager to welcome children.

3.4. Thereafter, the couple agreed between them to separate through mutual divorce. But, later the respondent disagreed. The attitude and acts of the respondent have caused mental cruelty to the petitioner.Hence, he has filed for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

RESPONDENT'S (WIFE) CASE

4. Case of the respondent is that after their marriage, the couple was living together in a rented house at Nandanam. The petitioner and the respondent had a normal sexual relationship and it is