Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 4113 (MAD)

R. Kamesh Kumar v. K. Vidyarthini

2018-11-02

C.SARAVANAN, R.SUBBIAH

body2018
JUDGMENT : R. Subbiah, J. 1. By a common order dated 06.11.2012 made in OP Nos. 230 and 3128 of 2008, the learned II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai dismissed OP No. 230 of 2008 filed by the appellant/husband under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of The Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty and allowed the petition filed by the respondent/wife in OP No. 3128 of 2008 under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act. Challenging the said order dated 06.11.2012, the appellant/husband is before this Court with these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. 2. From the averments made in OP No. 230 of 2008 filed by the appellant/husband, it could be inferred that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 22.08.2005 at Swagatham Kalyana Mandapam, Hotel Swagath Annexe, Royapettah, Chennai as per Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was an arranged marriage and it was also registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Tambaram on 24.08.2005. At the time of marriage, the appellant was employed as Marketing Manager in a private company at Bangalore and therefore, the appellant and the respondent, after marriage, commenced their matrimonial journey at Bangalore. According to the appellant, the marital life was peaceful and blissful for some time and after marriage, the appellant purchased a flat out of the wedding gift amount given by his brother in United States and also with his own money and loan arranged through the bank. It is the grievance of the appellant that the respondent would behave well in the morning when he leaves his home, but at the time when he returns to the home, she used to quarrel with him purportedly on the ill advise given by her parents. It is the further grievance of the appellant that the respondent often behaved like an insane person and used to talk to herself in the bedroom. The behaviour of the respondent was very odd that she used to walk here and there without any reasons. During March/April 2006, the respondent attempted to commit suicide by consuming an insecticide named 'Hit' and the appellant struggled hard to snatch the insecticide from her. The behaviour of the respondent was very odd that she used to walk here and there without any reasons. During March/April 2006, the respondent attempted to commit suicide by consuming an insecticide named 'Hit' and the appellant struggled hard to snatch the insecticide from her. On one such occasion, the respondent quarrelled with him loudly that the appellant attempted to close her mouth and at that time, she bit him and behaved like an insane person and the appellant was made to hit her in impulsion. Immediately, the respondent called her parents over phone and exaggerated the incident. Notwithstanding the same, the respondent also threatened the appellant that she will go to police station and lodge a complaint against him under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act and Dowry Harassment Act. 3. According to the appellant, the respondent became pregnant and at that time, his parents called her over phone, but she refused to talk to them. The parents of the respondent never made arrangements to perform the customary function during the 5th month of pregnancy. However, after much insistence, the parents of the respondent made arrangement for seemantham during the 7th month of pregnancy and the father of the respondent suggested to perform such function on 10th June, 2006 and the appellant also agreed for the same. The parents of the respondent took her along with them to the matrimonial home on 9th April 2006. On 23.04.2006, when the appellant and his father visited the respondent in her parents house and when his father was talking to the respondent, the father of the respondent unnecessarily interfered with the discussion and disturbed their talks. Inspite of the same, the appellant went to see the respondent once again and on that day, the father of the respondent shouted at him in filthy language and pushed him out of his house. Thereafter, the appellant was not even allowed to talk to the respondent. By citing this incident, the respondent cancelled the seemantham function which has caused acute mental agony and hardship to the respondent. Further, the respondent never informed the birth of the child to the appellant, however, on getting information, the parents of the appellant rushed to the hospital and stayed in the hospital for 6 days. However, for the subsequent naming ceremony of the new born baby, neither the appellant nor his parents were invited. Further, the respondent never informed the birth of the child to the appellant, however, on getting information, the parents of the appellant rushed to the hospital and stayed in the hospital for 6 days. However, for the subsequent naming ceremony of the new born baby, neither the appellant nor his parents were invited. When this was questioned, the respondent and his parents scolded the appellant with abusive and filthy language. The respondent also, for no reasons, contacted the colleagues of the appellant in his office over phone and spoke ill about the appellant which had caused a great set back to his career. On 21.12.2006, the respondent sent a mail to the appellant stating that she would bring the baby to a nearby temple at Selaiyur. The appellant sent a reply stating that he will excuse all her and her parents misbehaviour if she returns back to the matrimonial home along with the minor child, but the respondent never sent any reply. While so, on 14.01.2007, the respondent and her parents broke open the house when the appellant was in office in Bangalore and created a big scene by shouting that they will lodge a complaint to the police and see that the appellant is put in prison. Even when the mother of the appellant wanted to stop them, the respondent assaulted her. The appellant was also pushed down in the street and only after the intervention of a Government official, who came to the spot, the appellant and his mother could be rescued. Subsequently, the maternal uncle of the respondent called upon the appellant for a compromise talk and at that time, a condition was imposed that the parents of the appellant should not visit the house where the appellant, respondent and the minor child reside. The appellant also, for the sake of the minor child, accepted such condition. The compromise was also accepted by the appellant as well as the respondent in the presence of respondent's maternal uncle, her uncle's father-in-law and one of the relatives of the respondent by name Shankar. The respondent also agreed to come to the house on the same day at 6.30 pm along with the child, but she did not honour the agreement. The respondent also agreed to come to the house on the same day at 6.30 pm along with the child, but she did not honour the agreement. On the other hand, the respondent continuously nagged the appellant by sending e-mails and threatened to sue the family of the appellant which had caused great mental agony and disturbance to the appellant, hence, he has filed the Original Petition for dissolution of the marriage. 4. Repudiating the averments raised in the Original Petition, the respondent filed a counter affidavit contending that the marriage was an arranged marriage. Before marriage, the parents of the appellant represented that they do not expect any dowry and anything that the respondent's parents could afford can be done for their daughter. However, after the engagement, the parents of the appellant demanded that the marriage has to be celebrated in a grand fashion and that the respondent must be given 100 sovereigns of gold jewellery and silver articles worth Rs.2 lakhs. Since the engagement was already over, for the sake of their daughter, the parents of the respondent accepted to present the jewels, as has been demanded by the appellant. Further, during the wedding reception, the parents of the appellant refused to come inside the marriage hall by demanding that a diamond ring, gold chain and bracelet and a swiss-make watch have to be offered to the respondent in the reception itself. After much persuasion by the parents of the respondent, the appellant and his parents stepped into the marriage hall. Thereafter, immediately, the parents of the respondent arranged for diamond ring, gold chain and bracelet and a swiss-make watch and presented it to the appellant in the reception. Even thereafter, the appellant and his parents complained about the arrangements made for the marriage and they were pacified by the parents of the respondent. Notwithstanding the same, soon after the marriage, the father of the appellant demanded Rs.3 lakhs for purchase of household amenities to be provided in the matrimonial home at Bengaluru. Acceding to the demands made by the parents of the appellant, the father of the respondent purchased cot, bed, dining table, sofa set, godrej wardrope, refrigerator, mixer, wet grinder, gas stove and all kitchen articles, silver pooja articles such as Kuthuvilakku, silver plate etc., and delivered them at Bengaluru. Acceding to the demands made by the parents of the appellant, the father of the respondent purchased cot, bed, dining table, sofa set, godrej wardrope, refrigerator, mixer, wet grinder, gas stove and all kitchen articles, silver pooja articles such as Kuthuvilakku, silver plate etc., and delivered them at Bengaluru. Even after providing all the above said items, after the marriage, the respondent was nagged, harassed and ill-treated by the parents of the appellant. Even though the appellant and respondent stayed at Bengaluru, they will be made to come to Selaiyur, Chennai every month and during such time, the respondent will not be permitted to go to her house at Tambaram, Chennai. According to the respondent, she will be made to visit Chennai during her ovulations to prevent her from getting conceived. Even though the mother of the appellant was fully aware of the fact that during ovulation period, the respondent should not undertake any journey, the mother of the appellant insisted her to come down to Chennai along with the appellant during that period. Further, the respondent was not even allowed to attend her convocation function at Anna University where she did her M.Sc., Environmental Science. Whenever the parents of the respondent speak to the parents of the appellant, they will be treated very badly and used to complain that the articles provided to the respondent were inferior in quality etc., Even when the respondent was in Chennai in the house of the parents of the appellant, the appellant and his parents will not normally allow her parents to meet her and insisted for getting prior permission. The intention of the appellant to purchase a house of his own is only to extract money from her parents and only with the support of the parents of the respondent did the appellant purchase the house. When the appellant wanted the father of the respondent to pay Rs.17 lakhs for purchase of a house at Horamavu, Bangalore, the father of the respondent expressed his inability to pay such a huge sum. However, the appellant requested the father of the respondent to pay Rs.1,50,000/- for undertaking interior decoration work and accordingly, the respondent's father paid Rs.1,00,000/- by cash and Rs.50,000/- by way of cheque. 5. However, the appellant requested the father of the respondent to pay Rs.1,50,000/- for undertaking interior decoration work and accordingly, the respondent's father paid Rs.1,00,000/- by cash and Rs.50,000/- by way of cheque. 5. According to the respondent, the appellant always insist her to do whatever instruction that was given by his parents and that he will not take any independent decision without consulting his parents. According to the respondent, the brother of the appellant namely Magesh had a love affair and contracted an inter-caste marriage and eloped to United States. The mother of the appellant could never digest it and therefore she started commanding her younger son, the appellant herein and his wife, the respondent herein. The mother of the appellant wanted to make all the money out of the respondent only but pretend as if they did not demand any dowry from the respondent in the form of seervarisai. Thus, the mother of the appellant used the money given by her parents to the fullest extent The fact remains that all the household articles have been given by the parents of the respondent but inspite of the same, the parents of the appellant criticised the respondent for not bringing enough seervarisai. 6. It is the contention of the respondent that when she was pregnant, the appellant was over-joyed, however, it was not to the liking of his mother and therefore, the reaction of his mother had reduced his enthusiasm. As directed by the mother of the appellant, the appellant brought some native medicines to the respondent purportedly to abort the pregnancy and asked the respondent to consume them, but she refused. Even during her pregnancy, the appellant will not stay in the house, as has been instructed by his mother, but will go to common sports room in the apartment and play table tennis. Thus, during her pregnancy, according to the respondent, she was grossly ignored and was not taken care of by the appellant. Even the customary poomudithal function during her 5th month of pregnancy was not intimated to the respondent in advance but it was hurriedly conducted. The respondent was not even sent to her mother's house for delivery of the baby and only after much persuasion, the respondent was sent to her mother's house for delivery. Even the customary poomudithal function during her 5th month of pregnancy was not intimated to the respondent in advance but it was hurriedly conducted. The respondent was not even sent to her mother's house for delivery of the baby and only after much persuasion, the respondent was sent to her mother's house for delivery. Even when the respondent was in her parent's house, during her 7th month of pregnancy, the appellant demanded the father of the respondent to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to purchase a plot in his father's name but it was refused by her parents. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant came to the parents house of the respondent and abused the respondent and made her to cry. He also threatened to kill the father of the respondent. The appellant also, thereafter, stopped talking with the respondent. On 11.07.2017, the respondent delivered a girl baby who was named as Amirtha Kamesh Kumar. The birth of the child was not normal and it was by Caesarean and on hearing the same, the appellant and his parents scolded the respondent for not getting their consent and permission for undergoing a Caesarean. The appellant and his parents have also blamed the respondent for having delivered a girl baby. They did not even attend the cradle ceremony. After the birth of the baby, the appellant grossly ignored the respondent and did not meet her for a couple of months. The respondent therefore approached a women's organisation called Crime Prevention and Victim Care for guidance and as per the advise given, she went to Bangalore on 14.01.2008 along with her parents and the six month old daughter without intimating the appellant. The respondent was in possession of one of the keys to the house and another key was with the appellant. On entering the house, the respondent was shocked to notice that the house was in a disarray with books, clothes and other articles strewn and scattered all around. She was also shocked to notice that the wedding photo of the appellant and the respondent kept in the television cabinet was removed and instead a photo taken by the appellant along with bar dancers was kept. Even though the respondent called the appellant over phone, he did not respond and she waited for the appellant to return home in the evening, but till 8.30 pm, the appellant did not return home. Even though the respondent called the appellant over phone, he did not respond and she waited for the appellant to return home in the evening, but till 8.30 pm, the appellant did not return home. However, the appellant, along with his father and hooligans, claiming to be his relatives, came to the house, closed the main door and had beaten the respondent and her father mercilessly. The parents of the appellant also assaulted the respondent and prevented her from opening the main door. The appellant and his men also physically assaulted her father and had torn his shirt and on hearing the noise, the other occupants of the flat came to their rescue. Even at that time, the mother of the appellant told the respondent that she need not live with her son and that they are looking for another girl with whom he will live. At this juncture, there were commotion and the appellant, his father and mother, along with their men attempted to snatch to kill the female daughter, which was witnessed by the other occupants of the flats. Even though the respondent and his father went to Hormavu Police Station, it was not entertained for want of jurisdiction. The next day morning, a compromise talk had taken place in the presence of Mr. Thandava Murthy and Mr. Nandakumar, relatives of the respondent and the appellant informed that he could not control his parents and apologised for the incident that had taken place the previous day. When the appellant was asked about the photograph he had taken along with bar dancers, he could not give any explanation. When the appellant was asked to lead a life with the respondent without the interference of his parents, he did not agree. Therefore, the respondent along with her parents and the minor daughter left Bangalore. Thereafter, the appellant has hastily filed the instant Original Petition for dissolution of marriage. According to the respondent, she did not subject the appellant to any matrimonial cruelty, as alleged but it is she who was harassed and treated cruelly. The respondent therefore prayed for dismissal of the Original Petition. 7. On notice in HMOP No. 230 of 2008, the respondent has filed HMOP No. 3128 of 2008 for restitution of conjugal rights reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit in HMOP No. 230 of 2008 filed by the appellant. 8. The respondent therefore prayed for dismissal of the Original Petition. 7. On notice in HMOP No. 230 of 2008, the respondent has filed HMOP No. 3128 of 2008 for restitution of conjugal rights reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit in HMOP No. 230 of 2008 filed by the appellant. 8. The appellant has filed a counter in HMOP No. 3128 of 2008 contending that the appellant or his parents never demanded any money at the time of marriage or thereafter. The father of the respondent was employed in Chennai Corporation and he could not afford to present 100 sovereigns of jewels and 2 lakhs in cash and the allegations that the appellant and his parents demanded dowry is nothing but a false hood. The allegation that the respondent was made to travel to Chennai during the ovulation period is incorrect. The appellant had done his best to keep the respondent comfortable and this statement made by the respondent is misleading. According to the appellant, the respondent is a spend-thrift and she used to spend lavishly. In fact, the appellant was forced to purchase a house at the instance of the respondent by availing housing loan and almost 90% of the cost of the construction of the house was met by availing loan. The balance 10% was given by his brother who is working in United States. At no point of time, the appellant ever demanded the father of the respondent to pay Rs.1,50,000/- for interior decoration or wood works as alleged. The allegation that the parents of the appellant prevented the respondent from getting conceived is false and without any truth. Even during their stay at United States, the parents of the appellant arranged for the Poomudithal ceremony in the 5th month of pregnancy of the respondent. The appellant had arranged for conducting Valaikappu festival by booking a hall but it was the respondent who refused to attend the function, created a big scene and humiliated the family of the appellant. When the appellant and his family members went to the Nursing home to see the respondent and the new born child, they were humiliated and ill-treated. Even the ceremony called "Punyavajanam" or the naming ceremony was not intimated to the appellant and his parents. When the appellant and his family members went to the Nursing home to see the respondent and the new born child, they were humiliated and ill-treated. Even the ceremony called "Punyavajanam" or the naming ceremony was not intimated to the appellant and his parents. The appellant always insisted the respondent to come back to the matrimonial home along with the new born female child, but she never turned up. However, seven months after the birth of the baby, all of a sudden, the respondent along with her parents came to Bengaluru, broke open the doors of the house and barged into it. When the appellant and his parents returned home, they were shocked to see the respondent and her parents inside the house by breaking open the house. When this was questioned, the respondent and her father assaulted the appellant and his father and threatened him that she would lodge a complaint to the police as if he and his family demanded dowry from them. The respondent also hit the mother of the appellant in her stomach with her leg. The respondent also threatened the neighbours who have come to their rescue. Even on the next day, the respondent brought three miscreants and threatened the appellant and his family that they have to face the ultimate and took over some of the belongings of the appellant from the matrimonial home. Therefore, the respondent had caused acute mental disturbance and agony to the appellant. 9. According to the appellant, the petition filed by the respondent under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act is not borne out of facts. The respondent is not interested in joining the matrimonial company of the appellant but is keen on the monetary benefits and trying to exploit him in all respects. The respondent has very scant regard to the appellant and his parents and she never respected them. The respondent very often nagged the appellant to buy gifts for her family and whenever the respondent visited her parents house, she indulged in luxury shopping and drained all his resources. At the instance of the respondent, the appellant also purchased a computer to the family of the respondent. The respondent never permitted the appellant to have a glimpse of the child. In any event, the respondent is not interested in joining the matrimonial company of the appellant. At the instance of the respondent, the appellant also purchased a computer to the family of the respondent. The respondent never permitted the appellant to have a glimpse of the child. In any event, the respondent is not interested in joining the matrimonial company of the appellant. The matrimonial relationship between the appellant and the respondent had irretrievably broken beyond repair. The conciliation talks have failed due to the adamant attitude of the respondent and her parents. The appellant therefore prayed for dismissal of the Original Petition filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. 10. Before the Family Court, common evidence was let in the Original Petition Nos. 210 of 2008 and 3128 of 2008. The appellant examined himself as PW1 along with three other witnesses as PWs 2 to 4 and Exs. P1 to P15 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, she examined herself as RW1 and Exs. R1 to R14 were marked. The Family Court on analysing the oral and documentary evidence concluded that the matrimonial dispute between the appellant and the respondent are not such that it warrants dissolution of the matrimonial tie. The Family Court rendered a specific finding that the averments made in the Original Petition filed by the appellant do not make out a case for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty. It was further held that the instances relating to alleged cruelty cited by the appellant are trivial in nature and they cannot be taken into account for dissolution of the matrimonial tie between the appellant and the respondent. The Family Court therefore dismissed the Petition filed by the appellant for dissolution of marriage and allowed the petition filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court with these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant-husband would contend that the respondent was always quarrel some and she is a spend-thrift. The respondent intended to live in luxury and she would not confine her needs with whatever is available. According to the counsel for the appellant, the appellant and the respondent lived peacefully for a short period and thereafter, the respondent largely contributed for the matrimonial rift in the family. The respondent had scant respect for the appellant and his parents and she used to quarrel with him often even for a trivial family affair. According to the counsel for the appellant, the appellant and the respondent lived peacefully for a short period and thereafter, the respondent largely contributed for the matrimonial rift in the family. The respondent had scant respect for the appellant and his parents and she used to quarrel with him often even for a trivial family affair. The respondent always threatened the appellant by stating that she would commit suicide and would throw the blame on him. The respondent also threatened the appellant very often that she would prefer a complaint to the police invoking the Prohibition of Women from Domestic Violence Act or Dowry Prohibition Act. Even though the appellant booked a hall for performance of the Seemantham she did not attend the function and thereby subjected the appellant to shame and humiliation in the midst of his relatives. On the other hand, the respondent described the arrangements made for performance of Seemantham as an attempt to cause miscarriage of the child in the womb. Even though the appellant looked after the respondent for six days in the hospital during her pregnancy, without even informing a word, the respondent got discharged from the hospital. Even when the appellant visited the respondent for the first time after the birth of the child on 09.04.2007, the respondent and her father manhandled the appellant. Notwithstanding such humiliation, when the appellant went to the house of the parents of the respondent, he was pushed out of the house. According to the counsel for the appellant, the respondent, alleging that the appellant is having immoral conduct with other women, had sent a letter to the employer of the appellant and thereby tarnished his image and reputation in his office in the midst of his colleagues. Further, when the appellant and his parents were away, the respondent suddenly came to Bengaluru, broke open the house and barged into it and when it was questioned by the appellant and his parents, the respondent kicked the mother of the appellant in her stomach and it was also admitted by her in the counter filed before the Family Court. Furthermore, the appellant examined himself and deposed that the respondent had bitten him during a quarrel, attempted to consume 'hit' an disinfectant and often threatened to get him arrested by filing a complaint invoking the provisions of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Furthermore, the appellant examined himself and deposed that the respondent had bitten him during a quarrel, attempted to consume 'hit' an disinfectant and often threatened to get him arrested by filing a complaint invoking the provisions of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. This behaviour of the respondent had caused immense mental disturbance and peacelessness to the appellant and it was not appreciated by the Family Court. In order to substantiate the above averments, the appellant examined himself as PW1 and his relatives were examined as PW2 to 4. The deposition of the appellant and his relatives would amply throw light on the fact the extent to which the respondent and her parents have caused immense harassment and loss of reputation to the family of the appellant. The respondent has failed to discharge her marital obligations as a dutiful wife and brought disrepute to the family of the appellant. In any event, the appellant and the respondent are residing separately from 2008 onwards and by reason of such long separation, the matrimonial relationship had strained and it could not be resumed. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the respondent has sullied the image of the appellant by indulging in character assassination and imputing moral misconduct. However, such an allegations wrecked against the appellant have not been proved by the respondent in any manner. These unsubstantiated allegations made by the respondent against the appellant would fall within the meaning of cruelty defined under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of The Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court, without properly considering the above aspects has dismissed the Original Petition filed by the appellant for dissolution of marriage. In this context, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of (Jayanti vs. Rakesh Mediratta) reported in 234 (2016) DLT 437 wherein it was held that the wife, who made wild allegations against her husband in her pleadings, omitted to make those allegations in her examination-in-chief. It was also held that having made such wild allegations against the appellant without substantiating it would amount to cruelty as defined under the Act. By relying on the aforesaid decision, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Family Court did not appreciate the pleadings and the documentary evidence filed on behalf of the appellant. It was also held that having made such wild allegations against the appellant without substantiating it would amount to cruelty as defined under the Act. By relying on the aforesaid decision, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Family Court did not appreciate the pleadings and the documentary evidence filed on behalf of the appellant. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the respondent had given a complaint to the Women's Organisation in Chennai by name Crime Prevention and Victim Care in which she has made wild allegations against the appellant and his family. Even as admitted by the respondent, as per the advice of the Counsellor, she proceeded to Bengaluru along with her parents without even informing the appellant and his family about her visit. Further, before proceeding to Bengaluru, the respondent has given a complaint to the Commissioner of Police and Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tambaram and requested her father to hand them over to the concerned authorities in case of any emergency. This would indicate that the respondent had brought acute disrepute to the family status of the appellant and this is nothing short of matrimonial cruelty. The allegations made by the appellant in the Original Petition for dissolution of the marriage would constitute matrimonial cruelty attributable at the instance of the respondent and therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for allowing the appeals. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the allegations made in the Original Petition are vague, bald and lacks clarity. A reading of the averments in the Original Petition, as a whole, would indicate that they do not constitute matrimonial cruelty. The petitioner who has filed the Original Petition for dissolution of marriage must substantiate the averments made therein and he cannot expect the respondent to disprove it by shifting the burden of proof on the respondent. The learned counsel would further contend that during trial, the respondent has given inconsistent evidence which goes beyond his pleadings. It is well settled that any amount of pleadings cannot be admitted without evidence. In the original Petition filed by the respondent, certain averments have not been made but they were improved and finds a mention in the Proof affidavit of the appellant. It is well settled that any amount of pleadings cannot be admitted without evidence. In the original Petition filed by the respondent, certain averments have not been made but they were improved and finds a mention in the Proof affidavit of the appellant. For instance, in the proof affidavit, it was alleged that (i) he purchased the flat out of wedding gift money and also with the financial help from his brother (ii) respondent attempted to consume 'Hit' an disinfectant (iii) respondent bit the appellant for which he hit her (iv) threatened to arrest the appellant by giving a complaint to the police (v) difference of opinion in the conduct of Seemantham and the reason for cancellation of Seemantham. However, these averments are totally silent in the Original Petition and therefore, these averments do not deserve any consideration. Further, in the Original Petition, it was averred that both of them lived happily together at Bangalore, however, in the counter to the Petition for restitution of conjugal rights, he has stated that from the date of the marriage, the respondent indulged in quarrel, which goes against his own pleadings. 14. According to the counsel for the respondent, there were certain differences between the appellant and the respondent but they are trivial and insignificant and they are normal wear and tear in each family. However, the mother of the appellant had enlarged the dispute between them and had largely contributed for the matrimonial rift between the couple. By placing reliance on the various letters written by the respondent to the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondent demonstrated that the respondent was always ready and willing to join the matrimonial company of the appellant, which can be inferred from the letters under Ex.R1 series. The respondent made many attempts for a re-union but it was the appellant who remained silent without replying to any of those letters. The learned counsel for the respondent also invited the attention of this Court to Paragraph No. 38 of the counter filed by the respondent to the Petition filed by the appellant for dissolution of marriage, in which, she has categorically stated that even during trial in the Original Petition, she attempted to talk to the appellant but even that was prevented by the parents of the appellant. Thus, according to the counsel for the respondent, the respondent was always ready and willing to resume the matrimonial relationship with the appellant, but it is the appellant who is refusing to take the respondent back to the matrimonial home. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that on 14th January 2008, the respondent, without any intimation to the appellant, went to the matrimonial home along with her parents and she saw a photograph of the appellant along with bar dancers. On that date, the appellant, his parents and other unknown persons assaulted the respondent and her father and it was witnessed by the neighbours and they even came to the rescue of the respondent. At that juncture, the respondent's mother attempted to snatch the minor girl from the hands of the respondent and attempted to kill the minor child. In order to prevent such an attempt, the respondent was constrained to hit the appellant's mother in her stomach. On the next day, in the presence of relatives of the appellant, the appellant even tendered an unconditional apology to the respondent and her parents, however, the appellant refused to live with the respondent without the permission and consent of his parents. When the appellant was confronted with the photograph taken along with bar dancers, he remained silent without giving any specific reply but replied that they are his colleagues working in his office. Therefore, the respondent sent a notice dated 05.03.2010 to the company where the appellant was employed, enclosing the photograph, in which the appellant posed along with bar dancers and sought to know whether they are really the employees working with the appellant. By a reply dated 17.04.2010, it was stated by the employer of the appellant that the photograph was not taken in their company and that they have no knowledge about the girls who are posing along with the appellant. Therefore, the appellant only wanted to seek a clarification from the employer of the appellant especially when the appellant referred to the girls posing along with him as his colleagues working with him in his office. This cannot be, at any stretch of imagination, construed as an attempt on the part of the respondent to sully the image of the appellant or it can be construed as a character assassination. This cannot be, at any stretch of imagination, construed as an attempt on the part of the respondent to sully the image of the appellant or it can be construed as a character assassination. In any event, the averments made in the Original Petition do not constitute matrimonial cruelty and he prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 16. We have heard the submissions of the counsel for both sides at length and perused the materials placed on record. As we have dealt with the factual aspects of the appeals in detail, we are of the view that reproducing the same once again is not necessary. For the purpose of disposal of these appeals, certain facts which are absolutely required alone are dealt with. 17. The appellant/husband has filed the Original Petition No. 230 of 2008 under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of The Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty. On notice, the respondent herein has filed OP No. 3128 of 2008 under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act. 18. It is the grievance of the appellant that the respondent always quarrelled with him for trivial reason, she has not discharged her matrimonial obligations as required and that she is a spend-thrift. It is the further grievance of the appellant that the respondent often behaved like an insane person and used to talk to herself in the bedroom. The behaviour of the respondent was very odd that she used to walk here and there without any reasons. During March/April 2006, the respondent attempted to commit suicide by consuming an insecticide named 'Hit' and the appellant struggled hard to snatch the insecticide from her. On one such occasion, the respondent quarrelled with him loudly and therefore, he attempted to close her mouth and at that time, she bit him and behaved like an insane person and the appellant was made to hit her in impulsion. The respondent also threatened the appellant that she will go to the police station and lodge a complaint against him under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and Dowry Harassment Act. When the respondent became pregnant, his parents called her over phone from United States, but she refused to talk to them. The parents of the respondent never made arrangements to perform the customary function during the 5th month of pregnancy. When the respondent became pregnant, his parents called her over phone from United States, but she refused to talk to them. The parents of the respondent never made arrangements to perform the customary function during the 5th month of pregnancy. When the arrangement for seemantham during the 7th month of pregnancy was made by the appellant, the respondent did not attend the same and thereby caused disrepute to the family of the appellant. When the appellant went to see the respondent at her house, the father of the respondent shouted at him in filthy language and pushed him out of his house. The respondent never informed the birth of the child to the appellant or the subsequent naming ceremony of the new born baby. The respondent contacted the colleagues of the appellant in his office over phone and spoke ill about him. On 14.01.2008, the respondent and her parents broke open the house when the appellant was in office in Bangalore and created a big scene by shouting that they will lodge a complaint to the police and see that the appellant is put in prison. Even when the mother of the appellant wanted to stop them, the respondent assaulted her. The appellant was also pushed down in the street and only after the intervention of the government officials who came to the spot, the appellant and his mother could be rescued. Subsequently, the maternal uncle of the respondent called upon the appellant for a compromise talk and during such time, a condition was imposed that the parents of the appellant should not visit the house where the appellant, respondent and the minor child reside to which the appellant agreed. The respondent also agreed to come to the house on the same day at 6.30 pm along with the child, but she did not turn up. The respondent had sent a notice through her advocate to confirm about a photograph taken by the appellant along with other women, whereby she sullied his image and brought disrepute to him in the midst of his colleagues. With these allegations, the appellant has filed the Original Petition. 19. The aforesaid allegations made in the Original Petition by the appellant were denied by the respondent in the counter affidavit filed by her. With these allegations, the appellant has filed the Original Petition. 19. The aforesaid allegations made in the Original Petition by the appellant were denied by the respondent in the counter affidavit filed by her. Notwithstanding the denial of these averments by the respondent, we find that the averments so made by the appellant in the Original Petition for dissolution of marriage are not such that they warrant dissolution of the matrimonial tie between the appellant and the respondent. These averments or disputes between the couple are normal wear and tear which could be witnessed in any family and they cannot be construed as the one by which the appellant was subjected to matrimonial cruelty at the instance of the respondent. In other words, the dispute between the appellant and the respondent are trivial and they could be resolved by mutual discussion. 20. While defending the Original Petition filed by the appellant for dissolution of marriage, the respondent has made certain averments in the counter affidavit and contended that it is she, who was subjected to matrimonial cruelty at the instance of the appellant and his mother. One such averment made by the respondent is that during her pregnancy, with a view to abort it, the mother of the appellant, over phone, instructed her son, the appellant herein, to administer certain locally made medicines, which according to the respondent would be fatal to the child in the womb, if consumed. Accordingly, the appellant brought those native roots and asked the respondent to consume it, but she refused to consume those medicines. This incident of purchasing local medicine and asking the respondent to consume it was cited by the respondent as an attempt to abort her pregnancy. This was spoken to by the respondent in her examination-in-chief and reiterated it in her cross-examination. The relevant portion of the deposition of the respondent in her cross-examination is as follows:- “TAMIL” 21. This portion of the deposition of the respondent would indicate that as instructed by his mother, the appellant had brought certain medicines purportedly with an intention to abort the pregnancy. We also find that this averment of the respondent has not been specifically denied by the appellant. This portion of the deposition of the respondent would indicate that as instructed by his mother, the appellant had brought certain medicines purportedly with an intention to abort the pregnancy. We also find that this averment of the respondent has not been specifically denied by the appellant. Further, the grievance of the respondent appears to be that the appellant will not take any independent decision and that he would abide by whatever instructions given by his mother and it led to frequent quarrel among the couple. 22. It is next contended on behalf of the appellant that the respondent/wife had sent a letter to the employer of the appellant and thereby caused disrepute to him in the midst of his colleagues. We are not in a position to accept this submission made on behalf of the appellant. The circumstances that led to the respondent/wife sending a notice to the employer of the appellant is required to be examined. According to the respondent, on 14th January 2008, without intimating the appellant, the respondent went to the matrimonial house at Bengaluru and in the absence of the appellant, she had unlocked the keys of the doors and stepped into the house. On entering the house, she noticed several things including a photograph of the appellant taken along with bar dancers and it had shocked her. In this context, when the appellant was confronted with the photograph, he has stated that those who are posing along with him are his colleagues. In order to confirm such statement, the respondent sent a notice to The Manager, Human Resources, Acer India Private Limited where the appellant is working. By the said notice dated 05.03.2010, Ex.R10, the appellant sought to know as to whether the women who are posing along with the appellant were working in their company and whether the photograph was taken in the office where the appellant was working. A reply notice dated 17.04.2010, Ex.R11 was sent by the company denying any knowledge about the said photograph. Therefore, the circumstances which led the respondent to send the notice under Ex.R10 is to get a clarification as regards the women who were posing along with the appellant in a photograph and this cannot in any manner be termed as an attempt on the part of the respondent to sully the image and reputation of the appellant in the midst of his colleagues. 23. 23. The appellant has filed the Original Petition for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty and it is for him to prove it to the satisfaction of the Court. Cruelty has not been defined in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The word Cruelty cannot be placed in a straight-jacket definition. Cruelty is a term with wider connotations. At times, the 'Mental Cruelty' is more damaging than 'Physical cruelty'. Mental cruelty is the one which affect an individual all along and any amount of healing words/healing touch certainly would not remove the scars, which continue to prick and cause hurt to a spouse. The term 'cruelty' for the purpose of Section 13 (1) (I-a) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is to be construed as a behaviour by one spouse towards the other which causes a genuine and reasonable apprehension in the latter's mind that it is not safe for her or him to continue the marital relationship with the other. In the present case, on reading the averments in the Original Petition as a whole, we only find that they are generic and not specific. The averments contained in the Original Petition filed by the appellant are bald, vague and they are not such that it could be inferred that the appellant had suffered cruel treatment at the instance of the respondent. The averments do not constitute matrimonial cruelty said to have been inflicted on the appellant by the respondent. Rather, it was the respondent who suffered cruel treatment and harassment at the instance of the appellant and his parents. In such circumstances, the Family Court is right in holding that the appellant is not entitled for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty as defined under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of The Hindu Marriage Act. We are fully in agreement of such a conclusion arrived at by the Court below. 24. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that in the counter filed by the respondent before the Family Court in OP No. 230 of 2008 filed by the appellant, she has made several allegations and thereby sullied the image of the appellant and his family. 24. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that in the counter filed by the respondent before the Family Court in OP No. 230 of 2008 filed by the appellant, she has made several allegations and thereby sullied the image of the appellant and his family. According to the counsel for the appellant, the averments made by the respondent in the counter in OP No. 230 of 2008 itself would amount to cruelty and on that ground, the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce. We are not in a position to accept the aforesaid submission of the counsel for the appellant. On receipt of notice in OP No. 230 of 2008 filed by the appellant for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty, the respondent has filed a detailed counter in which she had broughtforth certain incidents that had taken place during the course of marital life with the appellant. In the counter affidavit, the respondent had contended that her mother-in-law had immensely contributed to the matrimonial rift between her and the appellant and that she had no qualm or quarrel with the appellant to a great extent. In the counter affidavit, the respondent had referred to the stoic silence maintained by the appellant without making any effort to save her from the onslaught of his parents. In any event, if the averments made in the counter affidavit by the respondent are false, then the appellant ought to have filed a rejoinder or disproved those averments by producing oral or documentary evidence. In any event, the respondent had narrated certain incidents in detail, that had taken place in the matrimonial home, in an effort to disprove the averments made in the Original Petition filed by the appellant. Therefore, the averments made in the counter affidavit, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as a matrimonial cruelty inflicted by the respondent on the appellant. 25. As regards the readiness and willingness of the respondent to matrimonial company of the appellant, the respondent had written several letters to the appellant which are marked as Ex.R1 series. The contents of the letters, marked as Ex.R1 series, would indicate that the respondent made several attempts to persuade the appellant to take her back in the matrimonial home. The letters so written by the respondent have not been replied by the appellant. The contents of the letters, marked as Ex.R1 series, would indicate that the respondent made several attempts to persuade the appellant to take her back in the matrimonial home. The letters so written by the respondent have not been replied by the appellant. The contents of these letters would clearly indicate that the respondent attempted to patch up the matrimonial differences between them for the sake of the minor daughter. Furthermore, the respondent herself asked the appellant to come and see the child once at least in a common place. The invitation so made by the respondent in one of the letters sent to the appellant by e-mail and asking him to come to a temple called Thenupureeswarar Temple to have a glimpse of the minor daughter has not been responded to by the appellant. The Family Court also referred to these letters and has come to a definite conclusion that the respondent was always ready and willing to lead a blissful matrimonial life with the appellant but it was the appellant who refused to take her back in the matrimonial home. Such a finding arrived at by the Family Court, in our opinion, do not call for any interference. The conclusion reached by the Family Court is based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant and the respondent and they were correctly appreciated by the Family Court to conclude that the appellant was not subjected to any matrimonial cruelty at the instance of the respondent and that the respondent was always ready and willing to join the matrimonial company of the appellant. We see no reasons to interfere with such a conclusion arrived at by the Family Court. 26. In the result, we confirm the decree and judgment dated 06.11.2012 passed in O.P. No. 3128 of 2008 and O.P. No. 230 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Family Court at Chennai. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. No costs.