(V. Eswaraiah, J.)

1. All these three appeals are filed by the appellant/husband aggrieved by the orders passed in O.P.1/2003 dated 18.08.2006 and against the common order passed in O.P.19/1999 and O.S.19/2001 dated 31.12.2001 on the file of the Family Court, Kurnool.

2. The parties herein are referred to as “husband” and “wife” for the sake of convenience.

3. The husband filed O.P.1/2003 on the file of the Family Court, Kurnool under Sec.13 (1-A)(ii) of Hindu Marriage Act read with under Sec.7(1)(a) of Family Courts Act seeking divorce against the wife on the ground that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights between them for a period of one year or upward after passing of decree of restitution of conjugal rights in O.P.19/1999 dated 31.12.2001. The said OP No.1/2003 was dismissed by the Court below, against which FCA.230/2008 is filed.

4. Earlier to filing the OP.1/2003 by the husband, the wife filed O.P.19/1999 under Sec.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act r/w.Sec.7(1)(a) of Family Courts Act for restitution of conjugal rights, and also filed O.S.19/2001 under Sec.18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for grant of monthly maintenance @Rs.3,000/- p.m. on the file of the Family Court, Kurnool. The Court below delivered a common order in both the O.P. and O.S. filed by the wife and allowed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the husband filed CMA.333/2002 and A.S.158/2002.

5. The case of the husband in the FCA.230/2008 is that he is physically handicapped person and is working in APSRTC as a cleaner. The wife is the native of Gooty, Ananthapur District and their marriage was performed at Kurnool on 05.02.1995. Soon after the marriage, the wife joined the husband and marriage was consummated and both of them lived together for some time. From the date of marriage, the wife used to humiliate the husband and make fun of his handicap and disability. It is stated that from 17.04.1999 there has been no cohabitation between the husband and wife, and the wife deserted the husband and therefore, the husband got issued notice to the wife on 17.06.1999. On receiving the notice, the wife filed O.P.19/1999 for restitution of conjugal rights and also filed O.S.19/2001 for maintenance, which were decreed. The Court below directed the husband to take the wife into his company and provide conjugal rights. It is stated that even after passing of the decree in O.P.19/1999, the wife did not choose to take any steps for joining the company of the husband and lead conjugal life, and the wife was content with receiving the maintenance order alone. Therefore, there has been no marital relationship in between the husband and wife even after passing of decree for restitution of conjugal rights in O.P.19/1999, and hence the husband is entitled for a decree of divorce.

6. The wife filed counter denying all the adverse allegations made by the husband. It is stated that the wife is always ready and willing to join the company of the husband. It is incorrect to state that between 05.02.1995 to 17.04.1999 there was no cohabitation between the husband and wife. It is stated that the wife has taken steps to join the company of the husband after passing of decree in O.P.19/1999, but in fact the husband has not taken any steps to take her back to his house and lead marital life with her. It is stated that the wife filed E.P.6/2003 in O.P.19/1999 for execution of the decree passed in O.P.19/1999, and therefore, the husband is not entitled for a decree of divorce.

7. To prove their respective contentions in O.P.1/2003, on behalf of the husband, the husband himself was examined as PW 1 and marked Ex.A1 and Ex.C-1. On behalf of the wife, the wife herself was examined as RW 1 and marked Exs.B1 to B7.

8. The husband as PW 1 stated that the OP.19/1999 filed by the wife was decreed against him, but the wife did not display any sincere efforts to translate the decree into action till 31.12.2002. After expiry of statutory period, he filed the O.P.1/2003 fo