JUDGMENT

(By G.R.Swaminathan, J.)

The respondent in H.M.O.P No.361 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli is the appellant before us.

2. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 03.06.2001 at Ramanathapuram as per the Hindu rites and customs. Two children were born through the wedlock. Alleging that the appellant had committed cruelty and was also guilty of desertion, the respondent filed H.M.O.P No.361 of 2017. The appellant filed counter. Based on the rival pleadings, the Court below framed the necessary issues. The respondent herein examined herself as PW.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. The appellant examined himself as RW.1. After hearing both the parties and considering the evidence on record, the trial court allowed the HMOP filed by the respondent vide order dated 03.03.2021. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the grounds of appeal and called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order and dismiss the HMOP.

4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order is well reasoned and that it does not call for any interference. It was further submitted that since the respondent herein had remarried in the meanwhile, the appeal itself has become infructuous.

5.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the evidence on record.

6.The points that arise for determination are twofold.

(i) Whether the Court below was justified in granting the relief of divorce to the respondent herein on the ground of cruelty?

(ii) Whether this appeal has become infructuous on the ground of remarriage by the respondent herein?

7.It is seen that the respondent herein is none other than the appellant's maternal uncle's daughter. There is an age gap of 11 years between them. When their marriage took place, the respondent was in her college first year. A girl child was born on 13.01.2004. A male child was born on 08.05.2006. In the intervening period, the respondent herein was pursuing post graduation studies(MCA). While the appellant herein became a Group IV employee, the respondent herein acquired M.Tech(IT) qualification and joined as Assistant Professor in a private engineering college. In Paragraph No. 14(d) of the counter, the appellant had alleged that the respondent herein used to speak to someone on phone continuously and that he made enquiries with their daughter about the person to whom the respondent herein was talking.

8.The court below after a careful consideration of the testimony adduced on either side, noted that the appellant had doubted the character and conduct of the respondent herein. The appellant herein had made enquiries about the respondent herein with the security guard of their residential quarters. By his own admission, the appellant had posed certain queries to the daughter. When the respondent herein had left for Chennai on 13.08.2015, the appellant herein quarreled with the respondent's parents and also made enquiries in the college.

9.Doubting one's character would constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This can be explicit or by insinuation. The averments set out in the appellant's counter indicate the suspicion lingering in his mind about the conduct of the respondent. It is this seed of suspicion that soon takes a firm root and in due course makes conjugal c