Long separation and absence of cohabitation between the parties have been interpreted as grounds for cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, establishing the basis for granting a divorce.

JUDGMENT :

P. DHANABAL, J.

1. Against the dismissal of the petition filed by the appellant herein for dissolution of marriage in F.C.H.M.O.P.No.100 of 2016 on the file of Family Court, Dharmapuri, the aggrieved husband has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court.

2. Brief facts that are required for the disposal of this Appeal are as follows:-

2.1. The marriage between the appellant/ husband and respondent/wife was solemnised on 04.06.1998. After their marriage, the appellant being employed at Border Security Force, left for his job to Punjab. Out of the wedlock, the respondent gave birth to a child on 22.01.1999. It is averred in the affidavit that the respondent became indifferent and left the child with the parents of the appellant, thereby leading a wayward life.

2.2. Meanwhile, the appellant and the respondent shifted their placeof residence to Punjab, wherein the respondent had begotten her second child. Even during her stay at Punjab, she developed an illicit intimacy with one Perumal. Thereafter, the appellant was transferred to Kashmir, as a result of which, he left the respondent with his parents.

2.3. During the appellant's visit to his native place, it is stated that the respondent became adamant and declined to perform her conjugal duties. The respondent never changed her attitude even after the birth of the 3rd child. Thereafter, the appellant took the respondent alongwith him to Pokran, Rajasthan and there also, the respondent developed illicit intimacy with one Vivekanandhan. The respondent often insisted the appellant for divorce and upon the intervention of elders, a Muchlicka had been executed and they filed mutual consent petition for divorce before the Sub Court, Dharmapuri. Listening to the advice given by the brother of the respondent, with a motive to grab money from the appellant, the respondent lodged false complaints against the appellant and his parents before All Women Police Station, Dharmapuri, after which the respondent has been living separately for the past 5 years.

3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the respondent/wife has been torturing the appellant and there is no scope for reunion. Therefore, the appellant filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of Hind marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. In the meanwhile, the respondent/wife executed a divorce deed on 17.06.2007 and left her matrimonial home and for the past 8 years, both the appellant and respondent are living separately.

4. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the appellant, 3 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and exhibits Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. were marked. On the side of the respondent, three witnesses were examined as R.W.1 to R.W.3 and no exhibits were marked. The Trial Court after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

5. Per contra, Mr. N.Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petition filed by the appellant before the court below is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. The facts cited above were not disputed by the respondent. The allegations that the respondent had illicit intimacy with one Perumal and Vivekanandhan are all denied as false. The averments that the respondent consented for mutual divorce and due to the intervention of her brother, the petition was not proceeded further are all denied as false.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that both the appell