L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

The appellant is the wife of respondent. Their marriage took place on 25.8.2004 and they were blessed with a female child in July, 2005. The respondent filed OP No. 407 of 2008 in the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, for divorce against the appellant under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (for short 'the Act'). He pleaded that ever since the marriage, the appellant was dreaming to go to United States of America, and after going there, she can sponsor her sister, and thereafter, settle down in United States. The respondent is said to have informed the appellant that the idea of sponsoring and settling in United States was too pre-mature. He stated that from a conversation, which took place between the appellant and her mother, while they were at Kodaikanal, he felt that the appellant was upset with something stated by his mother. It was also alleged that the appellant used to express her displeasure in remaining in the joint family and insisted for separate living.

2. The respondent has also pleaded that after the birth of a female child in the year 2005, the appellant joined him, but later on, he left for United States, on account of his employment. He alleged that when he came to India in January, 2006, the appellant did not join him, in spite of mediation. At one point of time, the appellant is said to have physically assaulted the mother of the respondent. The further allegation of the respondent is that even after he went to the house of the parents of the appellant, he was not permitted to talk to her, and they insisted that she would join him, if only he sets up a separate family and takes her to United States. Some other facts were also pleaded and ultimately, it is stated that the filing of some cases by the appellant against the respondent and his family members constitutes an act of cruelty. The respondent is said to have incurred expenditure of about Rs. 3,00,000/- in the process of defending himself in various proceedings and his repeated requests to the appellant to join him did not fructify.

3. The appellant filed a counter, opposing the O.P. She stated that she was always prepared to live with the respondent and his family, but the respondent deliberately kept her in India and has always been insisting on her to reside in the house of his parents, in his absence. She pleaded that being the wife of the respondent, she had every right to insist on him, to take her to United States, where he was residing, and that the cases had to be filed, unable to bear the harassment meted out to her.

4. On her part, the appellant filed OP No. 831 of 2008, under Section 9 of the Act. She pleaded that the respondent refused to take her, though she was always ready and willing to join him. The respondent opposed that O.P., by stating that the appellant harassed him through various means and when the application for divorce is pending, the question of restitution of conjugal rights does not arise. Through a common order, dated 30.6.2011, the trial Court allowed OP No. 407 of 2008, and dismissed OP No. 831 of 2008. Hence, these two appeals.

5. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondent.

6. The O.P. filed by the respondent under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act and the one, filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Act were heard together. However, the principal contest is the one, filed for divorce. The trial Court framed the relevant points, in terms of the relief’s claimed in the O.Ps.

7. The respondent deposed as PW 1, and he filed Exs. A1 to A3. The appellant deposed as RW1, and she filed Ex.B1, an e-mail sent by the respondent. OP No. 407 of 2008 filed by the respondent was allowed and OP No. 831 of 2008 filed by the appellant was dismissed.

8. In these appeals, the points that arise for consideration are, (1) whether the respondent made out a case for grant of divorce; and (2) whether the appellant was entitled for the relief of resti