J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) Challenge in this appeal is for a decree for divorce granted by the Family Court, Erode in a petition filed by the husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 alleging that the respondent wife had treated him with cruelty. The parties were engaged on 24.06.2009 and the marriage was held on 02.09.2009. According to the husband, even from the very first day of the marriage, the wife had claimed that she does not like him and she married him because of the compulsion of her parents. 2. It is the specific contention of the husband that the wife, who was working as a Teacher, agreed to quit the job before marriage. It is claimed that after marriage the wife wanted to rejoin and continue the job, which was not acceptable to the husband. This also created disharmony among the spouses. The wife conceived and ultimately delivered a baby boy on 17.11.2010. Though she came back to the matrimonial home on the 6th day after delivery, she stayed there only for a month and half. She took the child and went to her parents house and refused to come back. The husband would also claim that the wife had refused to return to the matrimonial home, since she does not like the parents of the husband. Even though the husband offered to set up a separate residence in his village itself, the wife did not agree and insisted the husband to live in her parents house. Since all the attempts to make the wife come back to the matrimonial home proved futile, the husband lodged a police complaint on 22.08.2011 with the All Women Police Station at Erode. The wife was called for an enquiry, wherein she agreed and gave it in writing to the police that she will go with her husband from 30.08.2011. Since the wife did not come back even after the said date, the husband filed H.M.O.P.No.227 of 2011 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Erode for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife filed a counter containing false allegations. Since the wife expressed her unwillingness to live together, the husband withdrew the application for restitution of conjugal rights and filed the instant petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

3. The claim was resisted by the wife contending that the averments regarding the wife’s refusal to live with the husband were false. It was contended that the in-laws treated her with cruelty and they demanded more money. The wife also accused the husband for demanding Rs.5 lakhs for establishing a drinking water unit. According to the wife, because of the demand for dowry and the cruel treatment meted out to her by the husband she was forced to leave the matrimonial home along with the child, who was only a month and half old at that time. It is the further contention of the wife that though she was ready to go with the husband on 30.08.2011, he did not come to take her back. The sum and substance of the defence is that there was a demand for dowry, she was treated with cruelty and forced to leave the matrimonial home.

4. On the above rival contentions, the learned Family Judge framed the following issue:

'4. jhP t; pw;Fhpa gpurr; id ? kDjhuh; kDtpy;

nfhhpas[ ;s ghpfhuk; mtUf;F fpilff; jj; ff; jh?'

5. At trial, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and one Chinnasamy, a relative, was examined as P.W.2. Exhibits P1 to P8 were marked. No document was filed on the side of the respondent. Respondent was examined as R.W.1 and her father was examined as R.W.2 and paternal uncle one Rasu was examined as R.W.3.

6. Having heard the parties and having considered the documents that were produced, the learned Family Judge came to the conclusion that the wife was guilty of cruelty. He found that the wife had insisted that the husband has to set up a separate house for them and he should not live with his parents. The learned Family Judge also found that the conduct of the wife in not attempting to live together even after giving an undertaking with the police on