O R D E R

The unsuccessful husband before both the Courts below is the appellant before this Court.

2. The brief facts are as follows:

The appellant and the respondent were married on 26.08.2015 at Perunthurai. The parties, after marriage had settled at the matrimonial home along with the appellant's parents. The respondent stayed for 16 days in her matrimonial home and after that for 13 days she was at her parents house. Thereafter, the respondent had adopted a routine of suddenly leaving the house and going to her parents house without informing the appellant and returning to the matrimonial home at her will. For three months, this practice is continued. However, on 02.11.2015, she had left for her parental home after which she had not returned to her matrimonial home.

3. The appellant would submit that the respondent while she was at her matrimonial home would repeatedly say that she has been forced to live in a village though she was brought up in a City. Therefore, she preferred her parental home. She would also slight the appellant/petitioner. All of which, had caused a great hardship and mental agony to the appellant. The respondent did not mingle freely with her in-laws. He would also state that the respondent had in one of her conversation told the appellant that if she had lived with some other person, she will be leading a happy life. She also lamented that the appellant was brought up by his mother to be a nice boy. He would further state that when she had conceived, she has asked the appellant to get her some medicines to abort the baby. She had in fact stated that abortion is very common now in the I.T. Industry. Every time, the respondent had gone to her parents house, it was the appellant who used to bring her back. On 02.11.2015, when she had left the matrimonial home, the appellant did not attempt to bring her back because he feared that if she was brought back she may attempt some drastic action. These acts of the respondent had caused hardship to the appellant. Therefore, he had filed the H.M.O.P.No.22 of 2017 on the file of the Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

4. The respondent had filed a counter denying all the allegations contained in the petition. In her counter, the respondent had stated that the petition for divorce had been filed on account of the fact that the respondent had delivered a girl child. The respondent had categorically stated that she did not hate the appellant/petitioner as contended in the petition.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petition is totally bereft of any details regarding the dates and in whose presence the respondent had treated the appellant with cruelty. In fact, the appellant/petitioner is silent about whether the cruelty is physical or mental which itself would clearly show that the reasons stated in the petition is a concocted one and made with a false intent. She therefore sought for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that no cause of action had been made out by the appellant.

6. The appellant had examined himself as PW1 and one T.P.Senthilkumar as PW2. The invitation for the marriage reception was marked as Ex.P1. The respondent had examined herself as RW1 and no documents were marked on her side.

7. The learned Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam, on considering the evidence on both sides dismissed the petition on the ground that the appellant has not been able to establish the factum of cruelty pleaded by him and that he has not been able to establish any of the allegations made by him in the petition. Challenging the said order, the appellant has filed C.M.A.No.8 of 2020 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode, Gobichettipalayam. The appellate Court also confirmed the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam. The learned District and Sessions Judge had observed that both the appellant and the respondent were highly qualified and were very young. The app