Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Per Contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent categorically submitted that there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruchirappalli. The date of desertion was as early as on 17.07.2006, and already 19 years have passed without any chance for reconciliation. Fairly considering that the couple do not have a child and the line of the averments made by the petitioner husband before the learned trial Court, the learned counsel submitted that, although the petitioner husband had fertility problems, the indifference in the matrimonial life between the petitioner husband and the respondent wife was only because of the inimical attitude of the respondent wife from the very first instance of the marriage, including her frequent visit to her maternal home without any valid reason. She always involved herself in serving her maternal home rather facilitating a harmonious matrimonial life. Her inimical attitude and separation from the petitioner husband caused untold anxiety both physically and mentally to the petitioner husband's mother, which resulted in her death. Therefore, the marriage has reached a point of no return, and the learned Counsel pressed for dismissal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 02:39:53 pm ) of the appeal.

7. The learned trial Court had examined the petitioner husband and his father on P.Rajalingam as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and had marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 on the side of the petitioner husband. The respondent wife was examined as R.W.1.

8. A careful perusal of the evidence deposed by the respective parties would reveal that the petitioner husband never denied having fertility problems and that he underwnt medical treatment multiple times, although unsuccessfully. Though he had deposed to that effect that the respondent wife also underwent treatment, he had precisely deposed before the learned trial Court that her health condition improved and the treatment was successful. However, he insisted that she had voluntarily deserted her matrimonial home with no intention of returning. While the petitioner husband's father, who was examined as P.W.2 during the chief examination, raised several allegations against the respondent wife, more particularly regarding her disrespecful attitude toward elders and her https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 02:39:53 pm ) involvement in unnecessary conversation during the conciliation efforts, and further throwing allegations that his wife passed away only because of the attitude and conversation made by the respondent wife in the conciliation process. However, during cross-examination, he was not able to cogently depose anything with respect to those allegations which he had raised in his examination in chief. However, he fairly admitted that his son had fertility problems, and during cross-examination, he had accepted that they had taken several steps for reconciliation.