Establishing mental cruelty as grounds for divorce requires substantial evidence of conduct endangering a spouse's well-being, not merely claims without proof.

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed as agains the fair and decreetal order dated 31.07.2014 made in C.M.A.No.20 of 2011 dated

31.07.2014 on the file of the learned District Judge, Karur.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts in the nutshell are as follows:

(i) The husband is the petitioner in H.M.O.P and the wife is the respondent therein. The petitioner husband has filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of cruelty.

(ii) On 23.08.1991, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was conducted in the presence of elders and relatives in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. Out of wedlock, they were blessed with a daughter, namely Nevetha and a boy, namely Rahul. The petitioner was employed as a permanent labour in M/S. L.G.Steel Rolling Mills. Later, the same was locked out and hence he got engaged in Super Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., for a lesser salary. The respondent had never been kind and affectionate with the petitioner and on enquiry about the same by the petitioner, the respondent wife disclosed that she was given in marriage to him against her wishes and she was in love with another person before marriage.

(iii) Despite the said disclosure, the petitioner husband continued living with the respondent, holding onto the hope that, in due course of time, the respondent wife would recognize the nuances of her matrimonial life. However, the respondent wife without respecting the petitioner, led a life to her own whims and fancies. Pointing out her involvement in the Women Self Help Group, she went to the extent of neglecting her children. As a result of which indifference crept into the matrimonial life. All the requests made by the petitioner husband to lead a simple life and take care of the children were not heeded to by the respondent wife.

(iv) Further, she was habitual in abusing the petitioner with filthy and unparliamentary language in front of strangers. The petitioner, despite being patient with the respondent's atrocious behavior, endured her mistreatment. However, in May 2004, without informing him, the respondent left her matrimonial home and went to her maternal home. She deserted him for more than two years, and all the expectations of the petitioner husband that she would return to their matrimonial home in due course of time were unfulfilled. In March 2007, the petitioner husband made efforts for reconciliation through one Arumugam, but the respondent wife categorically refused to restitute her conjugal rights with the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner husband had filed this petition for divorce.

(v) The respondent wife filed a counter, refuting all the allegations made by the petitioner in his petition for divorce. She contended that the petitioner had been leading an extravagant lifestyle, spending excessively without taking care of the educational expenses and other day to day expenditures related to their Matrimonial life. It was only the respondent's parents who took care of their children's educational expenses. However, after the marriage of the respondent's brother in 2004, the respondent's maternal relatives, more particularly her brother and parents were no longer able to provide further financial support to the family. As a result of which, on the instigation of his family, the petitioner husband continuously inflicted heinous domestic violence on the respondent wife. Finally, in June 2004, he forcibly chased her out of their matrimonial home. With the sole intention of rescuing her