JUDGMENT : Challenge in this civil miscellaneous second appeal is made to the Judgment and Decree, dated 21.08.2007, passed in C.M.A.No.12 of 2004, on the file of the Principle District Court, Pudukottai, reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 30.12.2003, passed in H.M.O.P.No.61 of 2003, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai. 2. The parties are referred to as per the rankings in the original petition for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioner has laid Hindu Marriage Original Petition seeking divorce against the respondent, on the ground of cruelty, under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, contending that after his marriage with the respondent on 22.01.1996, their marital life had never been cordial and the respondent has been treating him with cruelty, both mentally and physically, and never used to behave properly and despite the efforts made by the petitioner to live with her normally, the respondent did not mend her ways and continued to blackmail the petitioner and after getting conceived, used to beat herself on the pregnant stomach and thereby, the same has resulted in the abortion and even thereafter, despite the efforts taken by the petitioner to live with the respondent amicably, she used to threaten the petitioner for each and every small issue by saying that she would commit suicide and thereby, made the life of the petitioner miserable and during the said wedlock, the respondent delivered a male child, namely, Nikil Vellayan and even thereafter, the respondent continued to blackmail the petitioner and insisted for a separate living and even though the respondent was taken to the Doctors for counselling, the respondent did not respond to the same and inasmuch as on account of the abnormal behaviour of the respondent and the infliction of cruelty by her upon the petitioner, both mentally as well as physically, and thereby, rendered the marital life unbearable, accordingly, it is stated that he has been necessitated to seek the divorce on the ground of cruelty. 4. 4. The case of the respondent is that after denying all the allegations made against her, would contend that the petitioner and his parents had been demanding dowry from her and on being upset at the respondent in not giving the dowry as demanded by them, starting to ill-treat her one way or the other and accordingly, the respondent had to withstand the brutal assault as well as the verbal assault putforth by the petitioner and his family members and on account of the above fact, the petitioner consuming alcohol continued to assault the respondent as well as the maidservant engaged in the home and resultantly, the maidservant had also been forced to leave the household and due to the ill-treatment inflicted upon the respondent by the petitioner, she has been forced to undergo the abortion at the first instance and on account of the dowry demand, continuous mental agony had been inflicted upon the respondent by the petitioner one way or the other, the respondent had also levied Police complaint against the petitioner and his family members and the petitioner had not properly treated the respondent and the child and furthermore, the petitioner and his parents did not care for the welfare of the child and not endeavoured even to see the baby, when he was born and the petitioner used to obtain signatures in the blank papers for achieving his illegal objectives and the character and conduct of the petitioner are detrimental to the interest of the child and the petitioner would not evince any interest or care in the welfare of the child and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the divorce petition laid by the petitioner. 5. In support of the petitioner's case, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked and on the side of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R10 were marked. 6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, the Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the divorce petition preferred by the petitioner. 6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, the Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the divorce petition preferred by the petitioner. On appeal, the First Appellate Court, on a consideration of the materials placed on record and the submissions made, was pleased to set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and accepting the case of the petitioner and entertaining the appeal preferred by him, thereby, granted the divorce as prayed for by him against the respondent on the ground of cruelty. Impugning the same, the present civil miscellaneous second appeal has been preferred. 7. Based on the materials placed on record, it is seen that out of the wedlock between petitioner and the respondent, one male child had been born to them and though, at the first instance, they had been living jointly with the family members, later, it is noted that the petitioner and the respondent had set up a separate residence on their own accord and however, as according to the petitioner, the marital life of the parties is not smooth and cordial and contending that the respondent, on account of her abnormal behaviour, had been inflicting cruelty on him, both physically and mentally, and alleging that due to her abnormal behaviour, the marital life could not be continued peacefully further and therefore, sought for the relief of divorce on that ground. 8. Per contra, the respondent contended that on account of her failure to meet the dowry demand putforth by the petitioner and his family members, they had been assaulting her and thereby, made her life miserably and on account of the continuous attack, both physical as well as verbal, it is stated that the first baby got aborted and only thereafter, the boy had been born to them and even thereafter, the attack on the respondent by the petitioner and his family members did not abate and continued and thereby, contended that it is only the petitioner, who has been behaving cruelly and not otherwise and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the divorce case laid by the petitioner. 9. 9. The petitioner has examined the maidservant engaged by them as P.W.2 and P.W.2, in her evidence, has deposed that she had been engaged as the maidservant in the house of the petitioner and the respondent and deposed that the respondent had not been looking after the petitioner properly and not used to provide food to him and also used to treat him cruelly and on account of the abnormal behaviour of the respondent and also her cruel treatment, she had been forced to leave the household and the First Appellate Court, based on the abovesaid evidence of P.W.2, determined that it is only the respondent, who had inflicted cruelty on the petitioner and thereby, accepted the case of the petitioner and accordingly, considering the evidence of the maidservant examined as P.W.2, in toto, when it is noted that P.W.2 has deposed about having been engaged as the maidservant in the residence of the petitioner and the respondent and accordingly, the ill-treatment meted out by the respondent by exposing heat on her body at various places and thereby, she has also sustained injuries and the respondent, by developing tension, used to beat her often and always used to react with her cruelly and also without showing due respect and used not to show any respect to the petitioner and even used to threaten him to come to the house from the office and pick up quarrel with him and also beaten her during the absence of the petitioner and when the petitioner comes to her aid, she would allege that they have illicit relationship one way or the other and even used to throw stones at her as well as the petitioner and when the petitioner asks anything, she would go to her room with the child and threaten the petitioner that she would kill the child and thereby, intimidated him and used to break the mirrors in the house and leave the home at night hours and stay at Park, even used to demand the presence of the petitioner, despite her willingness to do the jobs, she requires and on account of the abnormal behaviour of the respondent, even the child used to cry on seeing her abnormal behavior and unable to bear the ill-treatment caused to her, it is stated that PW.2 had left the home and as rightly determined by the First Appellate Court, when the factum of P.W.2 having worked as maidservant in the house of the petitioner and the respondent having not been disputed by the respondent and furthermore, when nothing has been elucidated by the respondent during the cross-examination of P.W.2 in support of her case and that apart, when no motive, as such, has also been projected and substantiated for P.W.2 adducing evidence in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent, in all, as determined by the First Appellate Court, it is found that the respondent is not in the habit of behaving normally and used to find fault with the petitioner as well as the others, including P.W.2 for frivolous reasons one way or the other and thereby, used to ill-treat them and accordingly, unable to bear the torture inflicted upon her, accordingly, the housemaid had been forced to leave the household and also made the continuation of the marital life impossible and in such view of the matter, the cruelty inflicted upon the petitioner by the respondent is found to be established on the part of the petitioner through the evidence of P.W.2 and therefore, no interference could be made in the approach of the First Appellate Court in relying upon the evidence of P.W.2 for accepting the case of the petitioner. 10. Similarly, P.W.4, the neighbour of the petitioner and the respondent, has also deposed in his evidence that the petitioner and the respondent used to quarrel with each other often and it is only the respondent, who used to pick up the quarrel and behave ruthlessly and not give respect to the petitioner and at one point of time, when he interfered to mediate, he was shouted by the respondent as to why he is unnecessarily interfering with their affairs and thereby, showed disrespect to him and even, their maidservant used to inform him about the ill-treatment and torture caused to her and the maidservant had also informed him about the respondent exposing heat on her body and accordingly, he had also informed about the abovesaid fact to the petitioner over telephone and accordingly, it is seen that based on the evidence of P.W.4 also, the cruelty inflicted upon the petitioner by the respondent had been assessed and determined by the First Appellate Court and merely because P.W.4 is found to be known to the petitioner's family, that by itself, would not be the sole factor for disbelieving his version, when his evidence is otherwise inspiring and convincing. 11. Considering the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4, it is seen that whey they are found to be consistent as regards the cruel behaviour of the respondent one way or the other against the petitioner, therefore, the First Appellate Court is found to be justifiable in relying upon the evidence of P.W.4 also for accepting the petitioner's case. 12. The Doctor, who had treated the respondent, has been examined as P.W.3 and though P.W.3 has not deposed that the respondent is suffering from mental disorder, however, considering the evidence adduced by P.W.3 in toto, it is found that she has been counselling her one way or the other for restoring the normal behaviour and accordingly, the Appellate Court, placing reliance upon the evidence of P.W.3 also, accepted the case of the petitioner. 13. 13. Though the respondent would plea that only on account of her failure to satisfy the dowry demand made by the petitioner and his parents, they had been ill-treating her one way or the other both physically as well as orally, however, as rightly determined by the First Appellate Court, if really there had been a demand of dowry on the part of the petitioner and his family members, in connection with the same, the respondent would have apprised the said demand to her parents and to sustain her case, she would have examined her parents and other independent witnesses, on the other hand, no material whatsoever, both oral and documentary has been adduced by the respondent to sustain her case of the ill-treatment said to have been inflicted upon her by the petitioner and his parents for not satisfying their alleged dowry demand. Therefore, the abovesaid aspect of the case putforth by the respondent has been rightly disbelieved by the First Appellate Court. 14. Considering the evidence putforth by the respective parties, it is seen that on account of the Police complaint preferred by the respondent against the petitioner and his family members, they had been dragged to the Police Station and accordingly, it is evident that the marital life of the parties has not been smooth from the inception one way or the other and based on the evidence adduced by the P.Ws.1 to 4 in toto and thereby, the cruelty inflicted upon the petitioner by the respondent having been established by the petitioner and the plea of dowry demand putforth by the respondent having not been established in any manner and that apart, as rightly determined by the First Appellate Court, when from the documents placed on the side of the respondent, the defence putforth by the respondent could not be upheld in her favour and on the other hand, the fact that the respondent had even approached the Human Rights Commission, Delhi, for seeking the relief against the petitioner and his family members would go to show that as determined by the First Appellate Court, the respondent is not a woman of patience and used not to bear any act on the part of the petitioner and accordingly, in toto, the First Appellate Court is found to be justified in upholding the ground of cruelty putforth by the petitioner for seeking divorce. 15. 15. Furthermore, considering the materials placed on record, when it has become clear that the petitioner and the respondent could not lead the marital life further smoothly and their marital life had indeed broken down to such an extent that there is no possibility for reunion amongst them, accordingly, taking into consideration the abovesaid aspect of the issue also and relying upon the decisions relied upon the petitioner's counsel, as discussed in the Judgment, the First Appellate Court, considering the fact that for all practical purposes, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent had become dead and there is no chance for revival, accordingly, holding that the petitioner had established the ground of cruelty as above discussed through P.Ws.2 to 4 as well as his own evidence tendered in the matter, upheld the case of the petitioner. 16. The respondent's counsel contended that the First Appellate Court had erred in granting divorce prayed for by the petitioner by applying the irretrievable break down theory of marriage and failed to note that the abovesaid theory could not be applied as a matter of course for annulling the marriage between the parties and on the above ground solely, the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court are liable to be set aside. However, the abovesaid contention does not merit acceptance. Considering the reasons and conclusions of the First Appellate Court, in toto, when it is noted that the First Appellate Court had assessed the evidence adduced by the respective parties in the right perspective for coming to the conclusion that the respondent had committed cruelty on the petitioner, both mentally as well as physically and thereby, determined that the petitioner has established the ground of cruelty for seeking the divorce and also, noting that there is no remote chance of the parties again reuniting for continuing the marital life, accordingly, accepted the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the argument putforth that the irretrievable break down theory of marriage between the parties has been mainly taken into consideration by the First Appellate Court for granting the divorce in favour of the petitioner as putforth by the respondent's counsel cannot be countenanced. 17. Therefore, the argument putforth that the irretrievable break down theory of marriage between the parties has been mainly taken into consideration by the First Appellate Court for granting the divorce in favour of the petitioner as putforth by the respondent's counsel cannot be countenanced. 17. When the reasonings and conclusions of the First Appellate Court for upholding the case of the petitioner are found to be based on the proper appreciation of the materials placed on record by the respective parties, both oral and documentary and the First Appellate Court having assessed the matter correctly, both factually as well as legally, in my considered opinion, no interference is called for in the impugned Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, it is seen that no substantial question of law is found to be involved in this civil miscellaneous second appeal. 18. Resultantly, the civil miscellaneous second appeal is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.