JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order in I.D.O.P.No.134 of 2003 on the file of the District Judge, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil. The appellant is the petitioner and the respondent is the respondent in the original petition.

2.Brief substance of the petition in I.D.O.P.No.134 of 2002 is as follows:

The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized as per the Christian rites and customs. They gave birth to a male child. The respondent used to go to her parents house neglecting the advice of the petitioner, his family members and on 05.07.1999, she went away from the matrimonial home and she refused to return back and she deserted the petitioner since 05.07.1999. During January, 2000 and on 14.08.2003, some efforts were taken for their reunion, but that ended in failure. The wife caused mental cruelty and desertion.

3.Brief substance of the counter of the second respondent is as follows: The petitioner was having illicit intimacy with a girl namely Revathi who was a neighbour. Only on compulsion of the husband and in-laws, the respondent went to her parents have to get money. 115 sovereigns of gold jewels that belongs to the respondent was already sold by the petitioner. After the marriage, the respondent was not even able to have a glance at her ornaments. There was some conciliation talk arranged by the Panchayat President, Mullanginvavilai Panchayat. The respondent was living separately only from July 2003. Even afterwards she used to go there and stay there for some days. Only because of the cruel treatment and immoral behaviour of the petitioner, the respondent could not stay there continuously and peacefully. It was the petitioner who prevented the respondent to reside in the matrimonial home. The respondent is willing to live with the petitioner in a separate house and place.

4.One witness was examined and nine(9) documents were marked on the side of the appellant. One witness was examined and five(5) documents were marked on the side of the respondent. The trial Court dismissed the petition.

5.Against the dismissal of the IDOP petition, the appellant preferred this appeal on the following grounds:

The trial Court failed to consider that after the birth of the child, the respondent abstained from her duty as a wife. She used to go to her parents house and stay there for a long period. The trial Court failed to consider that on 05.07.1999, the respondent, without intimating the appellant, went to her parents house and failed to return back to her matrimonial home. During January, 2000, there was a panchayat by the elders for re-union and again on 14.08.2003, a panchayat was done. But only due to the adamant nature of the respondent, all the efforts for reunion ended in vain. The trial Court failed to consider that Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 reveals that there was misunderstanding between the parties and a case for dowry harassment was filed and the respondent filed a complaint before the College, in which the petitioner is working to remove him from service and which amounts to desertion coupled with cruelty. The trial Court failed to consider that the marriage is irretrievably broken and pray the order to be set aside.

6.On the side of the appellant, it is stated that from 05.07.1999, the respondent deserted the appellant and that she keep on writing complaints to his department and that in all the complaints, after enquiry, he was acquitted. The wife filed a complaint under Section 498 of IPC in C.C.No.171 of 2005 and the criminal case ended in acquittal. She filed a case for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C and she filed a revision in Crl.R.C.No.576 of

2012 and that the revision case was dismissed for default. The respondent used to file various complaints before various forum and she is causing mental cruelty. The complaint of the respondent is that the appellant has committed adultery and there is no evidence on the side of the respondent to prove that the petitioner committed adul