Per B.N. Rao Nalla, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by wife aggrieved by the order dated 07-01-2002 passed in O.P.No.63 & of 2000 on the file of the Family Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the said O.P. filed by husband for grant of divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act), was allowed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred to as the appellant and the respondent as arrayed in this CM.A.

3. After remanding the suit O.S.No.190 of 1995 for fresh disposal by this court by order dated 31-3-2000 in Appeal No.444 of 2000, the present O.P. was clubbed with the said suit. The suit was filed by the respondent under Section 26 and Order VII Rules 1 and2 CPC to declare the matrimonial status of the respondent (plaintiff therein) to be one having married appellant (first defendant therein), and defendants 3 and 4 are not his wives and also for injunction to restrain defendant No.2-Inspector General of Police, from proceeding with departmental enquiry against the respondent and the said suit was dismissed while granting divorce in the O.P.

4. The brief facts of the case in O.P.No.636 of 2000 are as follows:

Initially O.P.No.413 of 1999 was filed by the respondent for divorce on the file of the Family Court, Secunderabad, which was later transferred to the Family Court, Hyderabad and renumbered as O.P.No.636 of 2000. It is the case of the respondent that after the marriage he came to know that appellant was suffering from mental illness and when this fact was brought to the notice 7 of her parents, they took her to their house. Thereafter, the appellant failed to join him.

As such, he filed O.P.No.236 of 1986 for annulment of marriage on the ground of desertion. Later at the intervention of elders, the said O.P. was withdrawn paving the way for their reunion on 27-9-1987. That thereafter, the appellant filed a false complaint of dowry harassment against the respondent and his family members and the same was closed. Then, the respondent filed O.P.No.209 of 1988 for divorce and the same was dismissed on contest. Against the dismissal, the respondent preferred C.M.A.No.680 of 1994 before this court and the same was dismissed as withdrawn as the appellant has agreed to live with the respondent. As she did not come forward to live with him and even not allowed him to see his child, the respondent again filed O.P.N.407 of 1998 for restitution of conjugal rights and the same was allowed. As the appellant refused to join respondent, he filed O.P.N.413 of 1999 which was renumbered as O.P.636 of 2000 as stated in para 4, supra.

5. The appellant filed counter in the O.P. denying the allegations levelled against her; except admitting the date of marriage, giving birth to a female child and withdrawal of O.P. for annulment of marriage by the respondent at the intervention of the elders. It is alleged that while she was living with him, the respondent harassed her and dropped her at her parents house and then filed O.P.209 of 1988 for divorce which ended in dismissal on contest. The contention of the respondent that her complaints to Police are false or she was harassing by giving false complaints, are all false. That when she filed maintenance case, he filed O.P.N.407 of 1998 for restitution of conjugal rights which was decreed exparte.

6. Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the court below framed the following point for consideration:

Whether the petitioner (respondent herein) •is entitled to divorce or any other alternative reliefs. If so, with what terms and conditions?

7. O.S.No.190 of 1995 and O.P.No.636 of 2000 were clubbed together and common evidence was let in. On behalf of the respondent P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked, whereas on behalf of the appellant and other defendants D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and Exs.R-1, X-1 to X-7 were marked besides marking Ex.C-1.

8. The court below after taking into consideration the