Why not Mithila for Sita instead of Forest ?

And Tulsi Ramayan does not mention any second vanvaas for Sita and basically states that Ram & Sita ruled over Ayodhya after the war.

So where did this controversial part of the Ramayan come from? Later addition? By whom? Why? These are questions nobody has answers to.

Sita's exile could be a later interpolation by various individuals to make Sita look like society's victim (an extension of the agnipariksha) and hold Ram responsible for it. Or, it could even be the other way round that medieval mindsets might've wanted Sita to suffer more...we never know.

It could even be that Ram & Sita would've jointly decided that Sita should stay at Rishi Valmiki's ashram (she did not live in a scary forest amongst animals btw) - just to let the rumour-mongering die down. But when it didn't, there would have been no option but bhumi pravesh.

This is exactly why Uttar Kand cannot be regarded to have one singular source of information.

So, with these unanswered questions, it is difficult to answer why Ram did not ask Sita to return to Mithila instead. I mean, if you are asking on the basis of this show itself, I guess Janak himself would have a few tough questions for Ram (considering how he raised his own daughters). Also, I'm not sure if the Ayodhya public would be too pleased with their king using the 'Mithila loophole' to escape from the problem rather than face it head on. What kind of an example would it be?

And, unlike what is shown in SKR, it was not just one single dhobi who was the "representative " of Ayodhya's praja. It was the entire Ayodhya praja who was talking against Sita - men & women both. The rumour mongering was completely getting out of hand. True, Mithila was her own maayka but what would've stopped Mithila's public itself from behaving like that with Sita?

Also, I don't think Ram & Sita were the kind of individuals who would look for loopholes to escape and run away from situations (unlike us Kaliyugis). It was the Treta Yuga, don't forget that.

Yes, it was an extremely difficult situation for both Ram & Sita. But Ram only sacrificed his queen, he did not sacrifice his marital relations with his wife. He did not remarry. Yes, he lived in the palace but he gave up the palatial comforts. And, in the Ashwamedh yagya, he chose to install a golden statue of Sita (his own reply to Ayodhya's praja). By the time the Ayodhya praja realized their mistake, it was too late. We talk about Sita's pain but don't forget that Ram suffered too on account of his praja right till the very end - this despite keeping his praja's wellbeing above all else.

You can say that the Uttar Kand - as controversial as it was - was an acid test and a lesson to all of us. How would you face a difficult situation in life? Would you look to escape through a loophole, or would you tackle it head on whilst going through the difficulties?