S. ARIVAZHAHAN Vs. B. GAYATHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The marriage between S.Arivazhahan and B.Gayathri (parties herein) was solemnised on 23/5/2007 as per Hindu rites and customs. A girl child was born through the wedlock on 10/11/2008. Arivazhahan was employed as a teacher in Kendriya Vidhyala. He was then employed in Chennai. Since Arivazhagan was employed in Chennai during the year 2007, the matrimonial home was in Chennai. According to him, his wife left the matrimonial home in March 2008 itself. Alleging that the acts of the wife amounted to cruelty under Sec. 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, Arivazhahan filed divorce petition before the Family Court at Chennai. Gayathri filed petition under Sec. 9 of the Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Both the OPs. were transferred to the Family Court, Thiruchirappalli and renumbered as H.M.O.P.Nos.106 of 2017 and 105 of 2017. Arivazhagan was the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.106 of 2017, while Gayathri was the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.105 of 2017. Both the OPs. were tried together. Arivazhahan examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P. 16. Gayathri examined herself as R.W.1 and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.7 were marked. After hearing both the parties and after considering the evidence on record, the learned Family Judge, Thiruchirappalli vide common order dtd. 31/3/2021 allowed H.M.O.P.No.105 of 2007 and dismissed H.M.O.P.No.106 of 2017. Questioning the same, Arivazhagan filed these two civil miscellaneous appeals.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds of appeal. He emphasized the fact that the parties have been residing separately for the last several years and the marriage has suffered an irretrievable break down. According to him, this itself would constitute cruelty and prayed for severance of the marital tie.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the impugned judgment is well reasoned and that it does not call for any interference.