B. Chandra Kumar, J.

This appeal is directed against the decree and order dated 27.08.1998 passed in O.P.No.4 of 1993 by the Senor Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed by the respondent – husband against the petitioner – wife seeking divorce was allowed.

2. The appellant herein is the respondent/wife and the respondent herein is the petitioner/husband before the Court below. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Court below.

3. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 05.05.1982 according to the Hindu rights and customs. The specific case of the petitioner is that the respondent is a sadist and she ill-treated him which amounts to cruelty. The respondent forced the petitioner to put up separate family within two months from the date of marriage. She had humiliated him on the ground that his income from the coolie work was not sufficient to satisfy her desire for sarees and other cosmetics. The respondent was suffering from excessive white discharge and when the petitioner sought the advice of the doctors, the respondent went to her parents’ house and never returned to lead the marital life with the petitioner. The respondent is also guilty of desertion and she harassed the petitioner by filing criminal cases in C.C.No.263 of 1988 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, alleging that the petitioner had married another lady. She had also filed C.C.No.54 of 1990 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem, alleging dowry harassment under Section 498-A IPC and she has also filed M.C.No.14 of 1987 claiming maintenance and she was granted Rs.100/- per month towards maintenance in the said case. The respondent made all false allegations against the petitioner in those cases alleging that he was addicted to vices. Thus, the main contention of the petitioner is that the respondent is guilty of desertion and cruelty and, therefore, he is entitled for decree of divorce.

4. The respondent contested the matter and filed a counter and denied the material averments made by the petitioner. Her specific case is that after her marriage with the petitioner, they never resided separately and they were residing with the parents of the petitioner. She has also denied the allegation that she was suffering from excessive white discharge or any other ailment. She has also denied the allegation of the petitioner that when he sought the advice of the doctors about excessive white discharge, she went to her parents house and never returned and that she is unfit for marital life. Her specific case is that the petitioner married one Mysamma @ Varalakshmi – daughter of one Gandam Venkateshwar Rao of Uppaluru Village of Undi Mandal and that now, he has been living with her. Her further case is that the petitioner had two children, i.e., one son and one daughter, through his second wife and that the son born through his second wife died, but the daughter is alive. Though she admitted about of the filing of the criminal cases and maintenance case against the petitioner, but her specific case is that the allegations made by her against the petitioner in those cases are correct. Her further case is that at the time of marriage, her parents paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- as dowry to the petitioner and also gifted on acre of land towards ‘Pasupu Kumkuma’ and also 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments besides household articles to her, but the petitioner and his parents took away the gold ornaments on the pretext that they required money for business of the petitioner and subsequently, the petitioner forced the respondent to sell away one acre of land given by her parents and, therefore, the said land was sold away to one Madduru Venkatarao and that the petitioner had taken away the entire sale consideration amount and misappropriated t