GANTI SRINIVAS Vs. G VASANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, arise out of a common order dated 10-12-2011 passed by the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, in O.P. Nos. 386 and 1375 of 2008. The appellant is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage took place on 04-08-1993, and they were also blessed with two children in the years 1994 and 1997. Differences have arisen thereafter. The appellant filed O.P. No. 386 of 2008 under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') against the respondent, for divorce. The respondent, on the other hand, filed O.P. No. 1375 of 2008 under Section 9 of the Act, for restitution of conjugal rights. Through a common judgment, the trial Court dismissed O.P. No. 386 of 2008 and allowed O.P. No. 1375 of 2008.

(2.) Sri. D.V. Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the parties herein lived amicably up to the year 1997, differences have arisen thereafter, particularly after the appellant left for Canada, for better prospects in employment. He contends that the efforts made by the appellant to patch up the differences did not fructify. Learned counsel submits that the respondent has the habit of picking up quarrels, without any justification, and to go over to the house of her parents, and live there for long spells. He contends that not only the efforts of the mediators to bring about reconciliation failed, but also the notice got issued by the appellant to require the respondent to join his company resulted in the institution of cases under Section 498A IPC etc., with baseless and wild allegations. Learned counsel submits that the various acts and omissions on the part of the respondent constitute desertion and cruelty, and the trial Court ought to have allowed the O.P. 386 of 2008, filed by him. He further submits that the filing of O.P. No. 1375 of 2008, by the respondent, was only a make-believe affair and that she has no intention to join the company of the appellant.

(3.) Sri. R. Satyanarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that it is the appellant, who deserted the respondent, and when he has left for abroad, he cannot expect the respondent to live in the house of his parents. He submits that when the appellant himself has created a situation for the respondent to live separately, he cannot call it as desertion on the part of the respondent, much less cruelty. He has also pleaded that the respondent was left with no alternative, except to approach the Police with her grievances.