1. The aggrieved respondent / wife, before the Court below, has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order passed in H.M.O.P.No.2643 of 2019 on the file of the IV Additional Family Court, Chennai dated 30.08.2022, granting divorce to the appellant / wife and the respondent / husband, thereby dissolving the marriage, on the ground of cruelty as well as desertion.

2. Before the Trial Court, on the side of appellant / wife, she was examined as RW1 and five exhibits Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.5 were marked. On the side of respondent / husband, he was examined as PW1 and nine exhibits Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 were marked. The Trial Court after considering the evidences adduced on both sides, granted divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
R. This Court heard both sides and perused all the materials available on record.

4. On hearing both sides and perusing all the records, the point for determination is whether the respondent / husband has proved the grounds of 'cruelty' and 'desertion' for granting divorce. In this case, there is no dispute in respect of the marriage that took place between the parties on 27.04.2001 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is also admitted that both lived as husband and wife happily for more than 2 years and no child was born to them.

5. According to the appellant, the respondent filed a petition seeking for divorce without any valid reason and there is no ground to attract 'cruelty' and 'desertion'. But for the respondent, after marriage, the appellant caused cruelty by demanding share from the property belonging to the mother of the respondent and without any valid reason, she left the matrimonial home and has been residing at her brother's house for more than 16 years.

6. On a careful perusal of the above evidences and documents filed by the respondent / husband, it is clear that the respondent has proved his case on cruelty as well as desertion. The evidence of PW1, in respect of desertion reveals that both of them are living separately for more than 16 years and the said fact has not been denied by the appellant. Moreover, the evidence of PW1 shows that the appellant demanded share in the property belonging to the mother of the respondent and she threatened to commit suicide and left the matrimonial home without any valid reasons. Therefore, the respondent proved his case of desertion and cruelty.

7. Though the appellant was examined as RW1 and marked exhibits Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.5, she has not taken any steps for restitution of her conjugal rights and even in the counter, she has made allegations against the respondent and his family members, which do not infer that the appellant has any intention for re - union with the respondent. Therefore, the Trial Court, after considering the evidences adduced on both sides, has correctly allowed the petition, granting divorce, thereby dissolving the marriage that took place between the appellant and the respondent.

8. This Court has already discussed that the respondent has proved the grounds of 'cruelty' and 'desertion' for granting divorce. The term 'cruelty' is well explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, reported in 2005 (2) SCC page 22 : (AIR 2005 SC 534), and the relevant paragraphs are extracted as follows: -
10. The expression "cruelty" has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from