JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.04.2021 passed in C.M.A.No.10 of 2019 on the file of Additional District Judge, Mayiladuthurai confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 14.10.2019 passed in H.M.O.P.No.93 of 2017 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai.) 1. The unsuccessful wife whose petition for divorce was dismissed by the Courts below is the appellant before this Court. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposing of the above appeal are as follows: 3. The appellant had filed H.M.O.P.No.93 of 1977 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Mayiladurai seeking dissolution of her marriage with the respondent on the ground of cruelty. The cruelty that has been alleged in the petition are as follows: a) The respondent used to frequently quarrel with the petitioner for no fault of hers. b) The respondent suspected fidelity. c) The respondent on account of possessiveness would call upon her place of work which had caused a great deal of mental agony and torture to her. d). The marriage is irretrievably broken down. 4. The husband has filed a counter inter-alia denying the allegations contained in the petition. He would submit that he had never quarrelled with the appellant and neither had he suspected her fidelity. Therefore, there was no occasion for him to cross check the whereabouts of the appellant with her colleagues. The respondent has further submitted that it was he who had made the petitioner to study further. If he had suspected her fidelity, he would not have permitted her to join a job at Mayiladuthurai Cooperative store and her employment was procured only by the efforts of the respondent. The respondent would submit that at every stage, he had been encouraging the appellant, however to his shock he had received the divorce notice that too after they had led their life as husband and wife for over 12 years. The respondent would further state that no grounds as contemplated under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act have been made out for dissolution of the marriage. 5. The respondent would further state that no grounds as contemplated under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act have been made out for dissolution of the marriage. 5. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladurai, by judgment dated 14.10.2019 dismissed the said H.M.O.P. The learned Judge had relied upon the admission of the appellant in her cross as P.W1 and also the evidence of her brother who had been examined as P.W2 who would state that the respondent had never physically abused her sister and neither had he quarrelled with her to his knowledge. The Tribunal therefore held that the very ground on which the petition has been filed is rather shaky. 6. This order was taken up on appeal in C.M.A.No.10 of 2019 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Mayiladurai. The appellate Court also confirmed the judgment of the Principal Subordinate Judge and dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. 8. Both the Courts below have relied upon the evidence of the appellant as P.W1 and the cross examination of her brother, who was examined as P.W2 to come to the conclusion that the reason given for seeking divorce is non-existent. P.W1 in her cross examination has admitted that it was her husband/the respondent herein, who had encouraged her to study further and had got her the job. She would also admit that there is no major discord between herself and the husband. The only ground that she would state is that she has no mental peace, if she lives with the respondent. The statement as recorded by the appellate Judge has to be reproduced in the vernacular to understand the ground for divorce pleaded by the appellant and the same is so reproduced. Her brother, who has been examined as P.W2 as follows in his cross examination. The above factors would clearly show that the appellant has not made out any ground for grant of divorce. That apart, the irretrievable break down of marriage as alleged by the appellant also cannot be a ground for granting the divorce. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the Courts below. 9. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.