J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.SOUNTHAR, J.)

The unsuccessful petitioner/husband in a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty has come up with this appeal. According to the appellant/husband his marriage with the respondent had taken place on 23.11.2009. They set up a matrimonial home at Chennai. The appellant claimed that right from the inception of marriage the respondent ill-treated him and kept picking up frequent quarrels. The respondent and her mother had shown disrespect to the appellant by citing his financial position. The appellant also claimed that respondent had the habit of suspecting his fidelity with all of his colleagues. It was also claimed that the respondent used to call him at office hours very often and picked up quarrel with him. The respondent also blackmailed him under the threat of committing suicide. The appellant claimed that the respondent voluntarily withdrew from the matrimonial home during November 2011. On these pleadings, he sought for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

2. The respondent filed a counter wherein she denied the allegations found in the divorce petition filed by the appellant and claimed that it was appellant who used to pick up frequent quarrel with her. The respondent also claimed that she suffered at the hands of the appellant and also expressed her readiness to live with the appellant. On these pleadings, she sought for dismissal of the divorce petition.

3. Before the Family Court, the husband was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 were marked on his side and on the side of respondent, she was examined as R.W.1. After consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Family Court has came to the conclusion that appellant/husband failed to prove the act of cruelty pleaded by him and consequently dismissed the divorce application. Aggrieved by the said order, the husband has come up with this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

4. Heard the arguments of Mr.A.K.Sriram, the learned counsel for the appellant. The Court notice sent to the respondent was refused by her. Though the private notice sent to the respondent was served on her and her name appears in the cause list, there is no representation for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent by suspecting the fidelity of the appellant caused serious mental cruelty and agony to him. The learned counsel had taken us to the cross examination of P.W.1 wherein specific suggestion was put to appellant/husband as if, he had extra marital affair. The learned counsel elaborated that the specific averment of appellant in the divorce petition that respondent/wife suspected the fidelity of the husband was not specifically denied by the respondent in her pleadings. At the time of trial, the appellant/husband entered witness box as P.W.1 and he was extensively cross examined by respondent counsel as if, appellant/husband had extra marital affair. The learned counsel also had taken us to the proof affidavit of respondent wherein she averred that appellant had illicit relationship with many women. The respondent also averred in her proof affidavit that appellant/husband used to behave like a psycho. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on following decision in support of his contention that making false allegations against other spouse as if, he is having extra marital affair is a serious act of mental cruelty entitling the other spouse to get divorce.

1. (1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 337, (V.Bhagat versus D.Bhagat) 2. (2016) 9 Supreme Court Cases 455, (Narendra versus K.Meena)

3.Unreported judgment of this Court passed in C.M.A.No.3249 of

2017.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the averment contained in the appellant's petition for divorce that respondent blackmailed him by threat of suicide was not at all denied by the respondent in her counter and there was no cross examination of P.W.1 in this regard by the respondent c