G.Krishna Mohan Reddy, J.

These appeals have arisen out of common order dated 28-05-2009 passed in O.P.Nos.435 of 2006 and 391 of 2008 on the file of Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Court at Vijayawada.

2. The appellant (wife) in F.C.A.Nos.7 and 47 of 2010 is the petitioner in O.P.No.435 of 2006 and respondent in O.P.No.391 of 2008. On the other hand the first respondent (husband) in F.C.A.No.7 of 2010 who is the sole respondent in F.C.A.No.47 of 2010 is also the respondent in O.P.No.435 of 2006 and petitioner in O.P.No.391 of 2008. Further the second respondent in F.C.A.No.7 of 2010 and also O.P.No.435 of 2006 is not a party in the other proceedings.

3. In fact O.P.No.435 of 2006 was filed under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAM Act) for grant of past and future maintenance and for costs to the petitioner therein (wife). On the other hand O.P.No.391 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner therein (husband) under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HM Act) for dissolving his marriage with the respondent (wife) and for costs.

4. It is pleaded in O.P.No.435 of 2006 for the petitioner therein as follows:

On 27-04-2001 the petitioner (wife) married the first respondent as per Hindu rites and customs. Immediately the marriage was consummated. But from the beginning the first respondent subjected the petitioner to harassment to bring additional dowry from her parents which was encouraged by his father i.e., the second respondent and his mother. Even the second respondent and his wife instigated the first respondent to beat the petitioner to achieve their demand. The respondents and the mother of first of them also used to abuse the petitioner in vulgar language and beat her without any fault of her. They were not even providing food and amenities to her. Further during the last week of June, 2006 the parents of the petitioner went to the respondents’ house to see the petitioner. Then the respondents abused them in filthy language and necked them out threatening that unless their demand was met, they would not allow to see the petitioner. Ultimately on 10-07-2006 the respondents also necked out the petitioner from the matrimonial house snatching away all her gold jewellery by reason of which she joined her parents’ house. Further she got no capacity to maintain herself whereas the respondents got means to do so. In fact the petitioner prayed for awarding Rs.5,000/-towards her maintenance against the respondents.

5. The first respondent filed counter adopted by the second respondent denying the material pleas taken therein. According to the first respondent the petitioner herself deserted him without any fault on their part. He claimed in his pleadings specifically that in the month of July, 2006 she joined her parents and had been living there. Further he claimed that he sent one G. Prakash and one R. Jaganmohan Rao to the petitioner to negotiate for restitution of conjugal life which proved to be futile. According to him the petitioner got no interest to lead marital life with him. He also claimed that in the corresponding reconciliation proceedings the petitioner deliberately expressed her unwillingness to join him. According to him further they are Goldsmith by profession by which they prepare gold jewels on orders placed before them as a result of which they earn Rs.1,500/- only per month. Their plea ultimately is that the petitioner is not entitled to any maintenance from them.

6. In O.P.No.391 of 2008 the petitioner therein i.e., the first respondent in O.P.No.435 of 2006 (husband) reiterated the pleas taken by him in the counter filed in the other O.P. It is further claimed by him that after the marriage his family members treated her with great honour, love and affection and they lead happy marital life as well as social and economic life then. He alleged that she never used to shoulder any responsibility in the house and after the marriage, she went to th