L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. The respondent in O.P.No.78 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, filed this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). The O.P was filed by the respondent herein under Section 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Act, for divorce against the appellant. The trial Court allowed the OP and dissolved the marriage between the parties through its order and decree dated 19-04-1999.

2. The respondent is the husband of the appellant. Their marriage took place in or about the year 1987. They are also blessed with a son. Ten years after the marriage, the respondent filed the O.P., for divorce, alleging the grounds of desertion and cruelty on the part of the appellant. He stated that the appellant left the matrimonial house on 28-11-1991, without any justification, and there is no possibility of restoration of the relationship. He pleaded that the appellant used to dislike him on the ground that he is deaf and that his father was suffering from the disease of leprosy. It was also alleged that the appellant filed criminal cases and, forcibly got a deed of gift, by the father of the respondent executed in favour of the minor child, and subjected the entire family to litigation.

3. The appellant filed counter, opposing the OP. She denied all the allegations and stated that herself and the minor child were driven out by the respondent under the influence of his sister. She stated that the sister of the respondent left her matrimonial home, and after she started living in the family of her parents, an attempt was made to sell substantial extent of land. She pleaded that her father-in-law, i.e. the father of the respondent, objected to the same, and to protect the property from being sold, he executed a gift deed in favour of his grand-son, i.e. the son of the parties herein. She has narrated the nature of treatment said to have been meted out to her. Apart from opposing the O.P., the appellant filed counter-claim for restitution of conjugal rights.

4. The trial Court decreed the OP, as prayed for, through its order and decree dated 19-04-1999 and rejected the counter-claim. Hence, this appeal.

5. Sri M. Raja Malla Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent did not prove the grounds of desertion or cruelty, and still, the trial Court granted the decree of divorce. He submits that the disputes in the family arose, ever since the sister of the respondent started living separately from her husband and in the house of her parents. He contends that the allegation that the appellant disliked the respondent on the ground that he is deaf, and his father, who was suffering from leprosy; is totally baseless. Learned counsel submits that by the time the marriage between the parties took place, the respondent and his father were having those ailments. He contends that the OP was filed at the instigation of the sister of the respondent and that the same woman was instrumental in filing a suit for cancellation of the gift deed, executed by the father of the respondent, in favour of the son of the parties herein. He further submits that the very admission by the respondent that he is not willing to live with the appellant, even if she is coming forward, discloses the fallacy of the claim. According to the learned counsel, the cruelty, if at all was on the part of the respondent, towards the appellant.

6. Sri P. Venugopal, learned counsel, who appeared for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the appellant is living separately from 1991 onwards, and that itself is sufficient to prove the ground of desertion. He submits that the appellant harassed the respondent and his family in several ways and subjected them to extensive litigation. Learned counsel submits that the trial Court has appreciated the oral and documentary evidence from the correct perspective and arrived at a just and proper conclusion. He contends that it is not at all desirabl