Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : This is application filed by the petitioner under Ss. 10 and 43 of the Indian Divorce Act. 2. The petitioner's case is as follows :- The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 10-1-1985 at C.S.I. Church, Virugambakkam in accordance with christian rites and customs. The marriage expenses were borne out by the petitioner's parants. At the time of marriage, the petitioner's parents gave 10 sovereigns of gold and a sum of Rs. 12,000/- to the respondent besides house-hold articles. From the date of marriage, the petitioner was ill-treated by the parents of the respondent. They compelled the petitioner to do all sorts of manual works. The petitioner was directed to wash the inner garments of the respondent's elder brother. She was not even permitted to view the television, listen to the radio and read newspapers. The respondent's parents demanded dowry and the parents of the petitioner expressed their inability to pay. The ill-treatment continued and the petitioner was not even permitted to have full meals. Therefore, the petitioner had to leave the matrimonial home on 27-12-1985. There was thus justifiable and acceptable cause for the petitioner to leave the matrimonial home. A male child was born to the petitioner out of the wedlock. The respondent did not care to see the child, nor took any steps to resume the matrimonial life and thus deserted her. An attempt was made in the beginning of the year 1988 for reconciliation, but the respondent refused. The respondent has subsequently converted to Islam and has married a Muslim woman. In such circumstances, the petitioner prays for an order of dissolution of marriage and for the relief that the petitioner should have the custody of the minor child. 3. The respondent contends as follows :- The petition is not maintainable. It is true that the marriage took place on 10-1-1985. It is not true to say that the entire marriage expenses were borne out by the petitioners parents, but the expenses were equally shared by the petitioner's parents and the respondent's parents. The allegation that 10 sovereigns of jewels and a sum of Rs. 12,000/- were given is false. The respondent purchased the bridal dress. The respondent was not given a wedding suit. The allegation that 10 sovereigns of jewels and a sum of Rs. 12,000/- were given is false. The respondent purchased the bridal dress. The respondent was not given a wedding suit. Whatever the jewels the petitioner had with her were taken away by her when she left the matrimonial home on 27-12-1985. She left the matrimonal home without the consent and knowledge of the respondent or his parents. When the respondent's mother was taking rest in her room, the petitioner silently walked out without informing her. At that time, she took away all the articles at home except almirah, iron cot and sewing machine, and those items of articles were given away in the course of proceedings in O.P. No. 645/92. It is not true to say that the petitioner was ill-treated and was made to do all kinds of manual work. The allegation that she was directed to wash the inner garments of the respondent's elder brother is mischievous. The other allegation that she was not even allowed to watch T.V., listen to the radio and read newspapers, is equally false. That she was not allowed to have meals regularly, is also a bold lie. Right from the date of marriage, the respondent found the petitioner very fussy arrogant and irritable. The respondent always behaved nicely. At the slightest pretext, she became irritable and found fault with the respondent, complained, scolded and abused him in filthy language. She became indifferent and neglected the respondent completely and failed to perform her conjugal duties. Even though there was a maid servant to do the house hold work, the petitioner expected the servant to do even those certain works which any person would do on his or her own. The petitioner was granted all freedom at home. She was provided with mazines to read. The respondent even suggested her to go to sewing school to learn sewing. The respondent's parents treated her like their daugher and never asked her to do any work for them. The respondent never used to cook. She did not even used to open the house door when the respondent returned home from night duty or serve him supper or breakfast. The petitioner always considered the parents of the respondent as some kind of obstruction in her life and wanted the respondent to send them away. The respondent never used to cook. She did not even used to open the house door when the respondent returned home from night duty or serve him supper or breakfast. The petitioner always considered the parents of the respondent as some kind of obstruction in her life and wanted the respondent to send them away. The petitioner was arrogant and had ill-temparament and was given to high style of life, whereas the respondent and his parents were given to simple life. She left the matrimonial home even without informing anybody. She has been gradually and surreptitiously removing her household articles to her parents house. A son was born out of the wedlock on 21-8-1986 subsequent to the desertion by the petitioner. The respondent and his parents were not allowed to enter into the petitioner's house, soon after the birth of the child. The petitioner did not even care to inform the respondent and his parents about the birth of the son. The petitioner and her parents prevented the respondent from seeing the child in the hospital. When they went to see the child at the house, they were abused and sent away. Therefore, the allegation that the respondent did not take steps to see the child is an utter false. The respondent and his parents were humiliated to the extreme. The allegations in paras 6 and 7 are false and frivolous. There was no attempt of any kind from the petitioner's side for reconciliation. On the other hand, it was the respondent and his family members, who were taking steps to make the petitioner see reason and come back to live with the respondent. But, the petitioner and her parents were very adamant. Due to harassment and mental agony, the respondent has been leading a desolate life. He has embraced a new faith. But, the allegation that he married a Muslim woman is outrageous. The petitioner is not entitled to seek dissolution of marriage. The petitioner and his family members did not take any steps for reunion. The respondent took all steps and infact, has filed Matrimonial O.P. No. 645/92 for restitution of conjugal rights. But the petitioner had been adamant and refusing to come and live with the respondent. The respondent always wanted to have the custody of his son, look after him, maintain and educate him. The respondent took all steps and infact, has filed Matrimonial O.P. No. 645/92 for restitution of conjugal rights. But the petitioner had been adamant and refusing to come and live with the respondent. The respondent always wanted to have the custody of his son, look after him, maintain and educate him. It is false to say that the respondent did not care for his son. As per the compromise entered into in O.P. No. 645/92, the respondent returned the three items of articles to the petitioner and agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 300/- per month as maintenance. The petitioner did not bring the child to enable the respondent see the child and be with him, inspite of the directions of the Court. The petitioner disobeyed the direction of the Court and refused to bring the child to the Court. The respondent is always ready and willing to have the custody of the son, maintain and educate him. The son of the respondent is not properly looked after or maintained by the petitioner. Therefore, she is not entitled to have the custody of his son. The desertion is on the part of the petitioner and not on the part of the respondent. There is no cause of action. The respondent prays that the suit may be dismissed with costs. 4. The following issues were framed for consideration :- (i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of change of religion and marriage of another Muslim woman by the respondent? (ii) Whether there is desertion on the part of the respondent? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to have custody of the minor son? (iv) To what relief? 5. THE POINT :- The petitioner has alleged that she was ill-treated by the respondent and his parents, and unable to bear the ill-treatment, she left the matrimonial home on her own accord, and thus it is justifiable and reasonable. It is also her case that the respondent and his parents demanded dowry and money from the petitioner's parents, and ill-treated her. The other limb of the petitioner's case is that the respondent has changed his religion and became a convert to Islam, and has also married a Muslim woman. Therefore, that is stated as another ground for dissolution of the marriage. The other limb of the petitioner's case is that the respondent has changed his religion and became a convert to Islam, and has also married a Muslim woman. Therefore, that is stated as another ground for dissolution of the marriage. It is also stated that the husband did not care to come and see the child and that the husband is not interested in the welfare of the child and therefore, she must be allowed to retain the custody of the child. 6. As to be expected, the husband/respondent has denied the allegations of ill-treatment and cruelty. He denies the allegation that he married a Muslim woman. According to him, the petitioner had unbearable temperament. She was arrogant and that she left the matrimonial home on her own accord. He concedes that he embraced Islam, but denies that he married a Muslim woman. Again he would say that he was prevented by the petitioner's parents from seeing the child and he is fond of his son and would like to bring him up. 7. The fact is admitted that the petitioner left the matrimonial home on 27-12-1985. The marriage was on 10-1-1985. Thus, within a year of marriage, the petitioner had left the matrimonial home and thus nearly for the last 15 years and more she has been residing alone with her parents and son. The petitioner gave birth to her male child on 21-8-1986 and the son is now aged 13 years. It is not disputed that the respondent/husband filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court in O.P. No. 645/92. It is stated that subsequently, the respondent did not pursue the said application. Therefore, there are two admitted facts, which have to be taken note of very seriously too while considering this application. One is the fact that the parties are living away from each other for the last 15 years and if at all lived together only for a period of 11 months after the marriage. This would show that the marriage has broken down and irretrievably. The other admitted fact is that since the marriage, the husband has ceased to be a Christian and has embraced Islam. 8. Ex. P1 is the Extract from the Marriage, while Ex. P2 is the certificate of Baptism. Ex. P3 is the copy of the O.P. filed by the husband before the Family Court. The other admitted fact is that since the marriage, the husband has ceased to be a Christian and has embraced Islam. 8. Ex. P1 is the Extract from the Marriage, while Ex. P2 is the certificate of Baptism. Ex. P3 is the copy of the O.P. filed by the husband before the Family Court. Even in this application, he has described himself as Vinod Reuben Vedanayagam alias Moha-med Yusuf. In this application, he has stated that the petitioner gave brith to a son in the house of her parents. It is not stated in this application that the respondent went either with his parents or sister to bring the child and he was abused and driven out. The application for restitution of conjugal rights was filed in June, 1992. If really the fact that he was not allowed to see the child is true, one would expect him to mention the same in the application filed by him for restitution of conjugal rights, or file an application, seeking custody of the child. Ex. P4 is the counter filed by the wife respondent to the said application. Of course, in the counter, the wife has stated that she was ill-treated by the husband and his parents. There was demand of dowry and she was not even permitted to watch the T.V., listen to the Radio and to read the newspapers and that she was not fed properly and in such circumstances, she had left the matrimonial home. Thus, on the question of cruelty and ill-treatment, there is an assertion by the petitioner and a denial by the respondent. The petitioner is said to have left the matrimonial home in the month of December, 1985. If the allegations of cruelty are true, it is not known why she has not taken any steps and had kept quiet till the year 1995. Atleast, one would expect her to give a notice complaining about the ill-treatment. She has not examined her parents. On the other hand, it is the husband, who filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights and it is only in the year 1995, the wife has come forward with the application for disslution of the marriage. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner in keeping quiet is not consistent with the normal course of conduct. 9. On the other hand, it is the husband, who filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights and it is only in the year 1995, the wife has come forward with the application for disslution of the marriage. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner in keeping quiet is not consistent with the normal course of conduct. 9. In the course of chief examination, she has simply stated that after marriage, the respondent began to ill-treat her, demanding dowry and other articles and he never used to send her to her parents house. In her evidence, she has not chosen to say that she was asked to do all manual works, and that she was not allowed to watch T.V. nor allowed to read newspapers. She has not stated that she was not fed properly. A bald and general allegation is made by her in her evidence that the respondent began to ill-treat her, demanding dowry. Further, she has not stated anything about the respondent's parents ill treating her or demanding dowry. In the course of cross-examination, she has stated clearly that it is true that she left the matrimonial house without the knowledge of the respondent. Though she stated that her senior paternal uncle Masilamani, one Ramasamy and her father made attempts for mediation, they have not been examined. She has also admitted that her intention is to obtain a divorce from the respondent and that inspite of the direction by the Judge to produce the child into Court, she did not produce the child. Therefore, on an analysis of the evidence of P.W. 1 it is clear that the case of the petitioner that she was ill-treated by the respondent and her parents is a case put up for the occasion as no attempt has been made by the petitioner to substantiate the same and the Petitioner left the house of her own accord. 10. Now coming to the case of the petitioner that the respondent has married a Muslim woman, such a case has not been set out in the counter filed by her in the Matrimonial O.P. No. 645/92. According to her, she came to know about the marriage only subsequently. She admits that she has no records to prove that the respondent married a Muslim lady. Nor she has examined any independent witness in that regard. According to her, she came to know about the marriage only subsequently. She admits that she has no records to prove that the respondent married a Muslim lady. Nor she has examined any independent witness in that regard. It is also stated that she alleged before the Family Court that the respondent married a Hindu woman by name Pushpa. According to her, during the pendancy of the said O.P., the alleged marriage did not take place, but only subsequently, the respondent has married. Thus, as to the date of marriage and the place of marriage, the petitioner is not able to provide consistent materials. The respondent has stated that he has not married any Muslim woman. On the other hand, in the course of cross-examination, the suggestion that was made to him was that he married a woman by name Pushpa. Therefore, in such circumstances, the petitioner's case that the respondent has married a Muslim after his conversion to Islam, has to be held as not made out. 11. The admission of the respondent is that he converted to Islam in 1989. It is not his case that he informed the petitioner about it. It is also his case that he alone converted to Islam, but his parents still continue to be Christians. Section 10 of the Act clearly provides that in the event of a spouse changing the religion, the other spouse can demand dissolution of marriage on that ground. The intention on the part of the petitioner is clear that she only wants divorce. Infact, the O.P. filed by the husband was dismissed as withdrawn because of the filing of the petition by the wife for dissolution of the marriage. The petitioner also does not want the respondent anything to do with the son. The facts remain that after the birth of the child, the respondent did not take any steps to go and see the child. Admittedly, it is only the petitioner, who has been looking after the child, maintaining and educating him. At no point of time, the husband showed any interest. He never offered to take the custody of the child, for maintaining and educating him. He does not know even in which school his son is studying. Further, he never went to any school to see the child and never sent a pie for the maintenance of the child. At no point of time, the husband showed any interest. He never offered to take the custody of the child, for maintaining and educating him. He does not know even in which school his son is studying. Further, he never went to any school to see the child and never sent a pie for the maintenance of the child. It is admitted by him that right from the birth, the son is living with the mother. It shows that he has no love or attachment for the child. It is admitted by the respondent that the petitioner came to know about his conversion to Islam only after he filed the proceeding before the Family Court. Thus, we find that the parties are not living together for the last 15 years . No attempt has been made by the respondent to see his wife or bring her back. He has not even cared to know about the well being of his son. Likewise, the petitioner had nothing to do with her husband and has been living with her parents. During the subsistence of marriage, the husband has changed his religion, by converting to Islam without informing his wife about the same. 12. From a reading of evidence of both the parties, it is clear that the spouses do not want to have anything to do with each other. The marriage has lost its meaning for them. They no longer feel concerned about it. On the other hand, it appears that they will be happy to be rid of each other. Thus, this is a marriage which cannot be put back on course. There is no chance at all for the spouses to live together, forgetting the past. Therefore, there would be no meaning in maintaining the marriage tie which has become meaningless. Further, the husband having converted himself to a different religion, it will not be possible for the wife to live with the husband. It will be difficult for the spouses to live together when they profess different religion. Therefore, in this view of the matter, I am satisfied that the ends of justice require that the marriage be dissolved, as the tie had become ruptured long ago and has no moorings. It is better to strike it down once and for all and allow the parties to lead their own life at least hereafter in peace. Therefore, in this view of the matter, I am satisfied that the ends of justice require that the marriage be dissolved, as the tie had become ruptured long ago and has no moorings. It is better to strike it down once and for all and allow the parties to lead their own life at least hereafter in peace. Therefore, on an analysis, I hold that it is a fit case to order dissolution of marriage. In the circumstances, I have to hold that the petitioner is entitled to have custody of the minor son and the request of the respondent to have the right of visitation is not well founded. For he has not cared so far to evince any interest in the welfare of the child. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of change of religion by the husband and also because the marriage has broken down irretrievably which can never be put on even keel. 13. In the result, this application is allowed, passing a decree ordering dissolution of the marriage and further decreeing that the petitioner is entitled to have the custody of the minor son. But in the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Time Six months. Application allowed.