The court held that a husband contracting a second marriage during pending proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights may preclude him from obtaining relief based on evidence of cruelty.

1. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the trial Court.

2. The respondent / plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S. No. 771 of 1999 before the learned Principal District Munsiff, Tirunelveli, for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights against the appellant wife on the ground that she voluntarily withdrawn from the matrimonial home and hence he sought for restitution of conjugal rights.

3. The appellant - wife has filed a written statement, denying the various allegations and resisted the claim for restitution of conjugal rights on multiple grounds and inter alia contended that, the respondent / plaintiff - husband has not conducted himself properly and her life was threatened and she refused to join the matrimonial home on justifiable grounds.

4. Based upon the above pleadings, the trial Court had framed as many as three issues for consideration.

5. On analysis of the evidence in both oral and documentary, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs sought for and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the lower Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Hence, the Second Appeal.

6. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law are framed : -
(i) Whether the first appellate Court had erred in reversing the judgment by not appreciating the fact deposed by respondent witnesses?
(ii) Whether the first appellate Court is correct in asking for corroboration of the evidence given by lady witness D.W.1?
(iii) Whether the first appellate Court is correct in not discussing all the judgments discussed in the trial Court judgment.

7. The factual matrix's of the case are as follows : -
The marriage between the parties were solemnized on 20-8-1981 at Maharaja Naga Tirumana Mahal according to Muslim rites and custom and initially, they have stayed in the Maharaja Nagar and on 12-3-1984, they begotten a baby boy named as Ahamed Kammal and thereafter, on 11-4-1987. Hamsa Sabeeka was born and on 6-7-1994 Mahimudha Afra was born.

8. The respondent / plaintiff - husband filed the above suit for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground that the appellant - wife has left the matrimonial home without any justifiable cause and hence, he filed guardian O.P. No. 36 of 1999 for the custody of one of the minor child and followed by another suit after pre - suit notice to come and join with him and to discharge the matrimonial obligation and hence, suit for restitution of conjugal rights.

9. The said claim of the husband was resisted by the wife on multiple grounds in inter alia contended that date of solemnization of marriage and birth of one son and two daughters were admitted and after the marriage, the father of the wife has set up a shop (viz.) "zenith opticals" in the Tirunelveli Railway Station and also by investing one lakh rupee and also purchased a house for living in Tirunelveli in the name of the wife and the wife's father was already paid Rs. 7,00,000/- on various heads on various occasions. He is also looking after the educational expenses of all the three grand children and also given Fridge, Refrigerator, T.V. and Washing Machine and all the domestic materials for leading the life. However, the plaintiff has forged the optical - shop accounts and created an impression that as if there was a loss in the business and hence compelled the appellant wife to raise the loan by mortgaging the house property. Since, properties are standing in her name, she refused and hence she was subjected to physical pain on 25-5-1999 and 30-5-1999 and on 30-5-1999, she refused