(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of Family Courts Act 1984, against the fair and decreetal order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Family Court at Chengalpattu in FCOP No.129 of 2019 refusing a decree of divorce against the appellant on the ground of cruelty.)

C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

1. The petitioner in FCOP No.129 of 2019 on the file of the Family Court at Chengalpattu is the appellant herein. She had filed the said petition seeking dissolution of the marriage solemnised between her and the respondent on 27.08.2004. She had filed the petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The said petition was dismissed by Judgment dated 05.10.2021. Questioning the reasons given in the said Judgment, the present Appeal had been filed.

2. In the petition seeking divorce, it had been contended by the appellant herein that the marriage between her and the respondent had been solemnised on 27.08.2004 and a girl child was born to them on 15.06.2005. She got a job as Lecturer in SRM University at Kattangulathur and the family had shifted their residence to Guduvancherry. They shifted their residence again to Chengalpattu. It was contended that the respondent used to come home drunk every night and suspected her fidelity and used to quarrel with her and also beat her and the children from her and separate the children and kept them in a separate room and did not allow her to see the children. It was also contended that he also took her ATM card and prevented her withdrawing any amount.

3. The appellant contended that she was doing her Ph.d., course and the respondent was giving all sorts of troubles. He also beat her and abused her. The children were also put to much hardship. Their education were spoiled. It was contended that she had issued a notice on 03.06.2017 for which a reply was given on 15.06.2017. She had also lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Chengalpattu Town Police Station on 01.03.2019 seeking custody of the children. It was under those circumstances that she had filed the petition seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

4. The respondent filed a counter denying and disputing the allegations. He denied that he was alcoholic and that he used to drink in front of the children. He stated that his parents were school teachers and his brother was a Doctor. He also stated that he was also profitably employed. He stated that the appellant picked up quarrels and abused his parents. She also locked their room and pushed them out of the house. He also stated that he took transfer certificate from the school for the children and admitted him in another school at Tirchy. He stated that he is ready and willing to lead a happy married life with the appellant in the interest of the children. He therefore sought that the petition should be dismissed.

5. During trial, the appellant examined herself as PW-1 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-8. Ex.P-6 was the copy of the notice dated 03.06.2017 and Ex.P-7 was the copy of the reply notice dated 16.06.2017. Ex.P-8 was the copy of the CSR registered by the Chengalpattu Town Police Station, dated 18.03.2019. The respondent examined himself as RW-1 and did not mark any document.

6. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge held that both the appellant and the respondent levelled allegations against each other, raising grievances against the conduct of the other and continued to live separately. It was noted that they were both well educated and were employed and were well placed in life. It had been stated that it would only be appropriate that they are given some time to reflect upon their own behaviour and would rejoin in the interest of the children. It had been stated that even small issues had been blown out of proportion. In view of those reasons, the petition seeking divorce was dismissed. Challenging the said reasons, the present Appeal had been filed.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out the allegations raised against the respondent and contended that the trial Court was not correct in coming to a conclusion that both the appellant and the respondent indulged in levelling allegation against each other. The learned counsel contended that since the allegation of the respondent coming home drunk every night and creating troubles had been established, the Court should have proceeded to grant divorce and dissolved the marriage. It had been contended that the respondent had continuously misbehaved both with the appellant and with the children and that therefore, the proper solution would have been to dissolve the marriage rather than to dismiss the petition seeking dissolution of the marriage.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent however disputed these contentions. The learned counsel argued that none of the allegations raised by the appellant had been established or proved in manner known to law. He pointed out the documents filed and stated that the appellant had only raised frivolous complaints. He stated that the children are in the custody of the respondent who is bearing all their expenses. The learned counsel contended that it is the wish of the respondent that the appellant should rejoin him in the marital life. He stated that the learned Family Court had taken a just decision in dismissing the petition seeking divorce.

9. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and perused the materials available on records.

10. The appellant herein had sought dissolution of the marriage solemnised between herself and the respondent on 27.08.2004. The appellant and the respondent were blessed with two children. The primary allegation against the respondent was that he came coming home drunk every night and misbehaved with the appellant and the children. But this statement had been denied by the respondent. It is significant that except for the statement made in the petition and in oral testimony, this allegation had not been proved in manner known to law. On the other hand, the respondent had also raised allegations against the appellant of misbehaviour with his aged parents.

11. The learned Trial Judge had examined the issues between the parties and had stated that the issues had been blown out of proportion and that both have indulged in raising unnecessary allegations against each other. The learned Trial Judge was of the opinion that both of them should be given time to reflect about their own conduct and hopefully take a decision to rejoin atleast in the interest of the children.

12. A further examination of the pleadings show that the appellant herein is employed as Lecturer in a renowned college and the respondent is also profitably employed having done his Master in Business Administration. The allegations raised against each other have not been established by them. It is a long line of complaints levelled by each other against the other.

13. As noted by the Trial Court, it would only be appropriate that in the interest of the two children, both the appellant and the respondent are given time and space to reflect about to the direction in which they would like their marital life to go. The allegations raised do not indicate either cruelty or desertion. There has been levelling of allegations and a denial of the same. There has been no proof of any of the allegations raised. In the absence of any documentary evidence or other valid proof, it may not be proper to hold that the respondent had acted with cruelty against the appellant or that he had deserted her. The children are being provided with good education.

14. We hold that no sufficient grounds have been made to reverse the well considered Judgment of the trial Court. We are of the firm view that the trial Judge had properly assessed the evidence on record and had come to a just conclusion that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent should subsist and should not be dissolved.

15. In view of the above reasons, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.