Insufficient evidence of cruelty leads to dismissal of divorce appeal; court affirms willingness of wife to resume cohabitation.

JUDGMENT

The Appellant/husband has filed these Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals against the judgment dated 03.08.2013 passed in CMA. Nos. 24 and 25 of 2012 on the file of the District Court, Trichy confirming the Order and decretal order dated 06.04.2011 made in HMOP.No.169 of 2003 and 199 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Trichy.

2. The case of the petitioner / husband in both petition in brief.

The marriage between the petitioner and respondent took place on

16.03.2000. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was employed in Muscat. He took the respondent to Muscat in October 2000 as some delay had occurred in obtaining the visa. From the date of marriage the respondent was made complaints against his mother and cousin sisters. After joining with him at Muscat the respondent began to exhibit abnormal behavior suspecting his character and even started enquiring with neighbours about the petitioner marital status. On occasion, she stood behind holding a knife. When questioned, she stated that she did not even need knife to kill him and that she could easily do so by mixing poison in his food. Though she wanted to secure a job. However, obtaining a job for women in Muscat was not easy. The respondent wished to return to India to resume her employment at Anna University contrary, to the wishes of the petitioner. Subsequently she returned to India on 16.04.2001. Thereafter both the parties have been residing separately. The mediation efforts taken for reunion did not yield the desired result. The respondent has caused cruelty and harassment, to the petitioner. The marital relationship has irretrievably broken down. Hence, the petitioner has filed HMOP.No.169 of 2003 for dissolution of marriage.

3. The case of the respondent/wife in both the petitions in brief:

The respondent is a well educated, Ph.D. Degree holder and she is employed at Anna University at the time of marriage. After marriage, the petitioner alone went to Muscat and after some time, he invited her to join with him at Muscat. The parties lived together in Muscat for 6 months. During this period, the petitioner failed to act as a dutiful husband and he refused to provide conjugal companionship to the respondent. Without any reasonable cause, the petitioner treated the respondent with cruelty. He had no intention of keeping the respondent at Muscat. Consequently, he did not permit her to attend the interview scheduled at Caledonian College of Engineering at Muscat and thereafter drove her out of matrimonial home and compelling her to return to India after approximately 6 months.

4. After the respondent returned to India the petitioner without any prior notice, filed the petition for divorce on imaginary and baseless, allegations. Despite cruelty and harassment inflicted upon her, the respondent is ready and willing to cohabit with the petitioner and is not inclined to seek a divorce. She desire to lead live peaceful matrimonial life, with her husband and has therefore filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights in HMOP.No.199 of 2004.

5. Before the trial Court the petitioner/husband examined himself as P.W.1 and Ex. P.1 was marked. The respondent/wife examined herself as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R46 were marked.

6. After conducting a joint trial and considering the evidence and records, trial court by a common order allowed the petition filed by the respondent/wife for restitution of conjugal rights and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/husband for dissolution of marriage in a common order.

7. Aggrieved by the said common order, the husband filed CMA.Nos.24 and 25 of 2012 befo