Established grounds for divorce include corroborative evidence of adultery and desertion, which override claims of coercion regarding marriage agreements.

JUDGMENT :

R. POORNIMA, J.

The Appellant/1^st respondent/Wife has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the fair order and decretal order dated 30.04.2019 passed in I.D.O.P.No.207 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil.

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

(a) The petitioner and the first respondent are Christians. Their marriage was solemnized on 23.06.1996 according to Christian rites before the Marriage Registrar, Thoothukudi. Out of the said wedlock, two male children were born, namely, Arun Ashick on 17.11.1997 and Arun Ajay on 23.07.2002.

(b) After the birth of the children, the first respondent developed illicit intimacy with the second respondent and began living in adultery with him. Thereafter, on 09.09.2009, the first respondent left the matrimonial home along with the two children. On the very same day, the first and second respondents entered into a marriage agreement before the Sub-Registrar Office, Parasala, vide Document No.1031/2009, and started living together, thereby deserting the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed to grant divorce.

3. The respondent denied all the allegations contained in the petition, including the allegation of adultery. According to the respondent, the second respondent is only a friend of the petitioner. The petitioner, along with the first respondent, had borrowed money from one Nagarajan @ Nagupillai and lent the same to third parties. They had also advanced loans through the first respondent.

3.1. The respondent stated that she has no acquaintance with the second respondent or his wife, Umayal Rani, and that it was the petitioner alone who brought the second respondent to her residence.

3.2. The petitioner had lent a sum of Rs.1,75,000/-, which was borrowed from Thiru Nagarajan @ Nagupillai at a monthly interest rate of 36%. Out of the said interest, the petitioner collected 18% for himself and paid the remaining 18% to the said Nagarajan @ Nagupillai. Subsequently, the second respondent was unable to repay the amount, and the petitioner repeatedly demanded repayment.

3.3. The wife of the second respondent was earning money through a self-help group. Since the second respondent had borrowed the money without her knowledge, and in order to repay the same, the second respondent falsely informed his wife that he was having an illegal affair with a lady and that he required a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to put an end to the said relationship. Believing the same, the wife agreed.

3.4. Thereafter, the second respondent approached the petitioner seeking help. The petitioner consented and deliberately selected this respondent and requested her to cooperate in the said plan. A forged document was prepared with the connivance of the petitioner. The petitioner threatened the first respondent that she should accept the same, failing which he would commit suicide.

3.5. Therefore, in order to protect the petitioner and the children, the first respondent was constrained to accept the said arrangement. Thereafter, the petitioner sent the first respondent along with the second respondent for the purpose of entering into a marriage agreement. A document was registered in this regard; however, the original of the said document was in the possession of the petitioner alone. Subsequently, the petitioner demanded repayment of the money from the first respondent. In the meantime, the wife of the second respondent insisted on meeting the woman with