L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

The appellant is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage was performed on 16.08.1998 at Secunderabad and out of the wedlock, they had two female children. The appellant filed O.P.No.353 of 2002 in the Family Court, Hyderabad for divorce against the respondent by pleading grounds of cruelty under Section 13 (i) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short ‘the Act’). He pleaded that ever since the marriage, the respondent was harassing him on trivial issues and in fact, left the matrimonial house on 25.05.2000. Thereafter, she is said to have returned, but again left the home on 21.09.2000. He alleged that the respondent used to insist on putting a separate residence from the parents of the appellant and in spite of his best efforts, there was no change in her attitude. It was stated that though he got issued a legal notice, dated 28.04.2002, requiring the respondent to join him, she did not accede to the request and on the other hand, had initiated false criminal proceedings.

The O.P. was opposed by the respondent. She pleaded that at the time of marriage, dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- was given to the appellant apart from household articles and gold items. It was alleged that she was beaten and ill-treated by the appellant. She stated that on several occasions, compromise was effected, but the cruel attitude of the appellant did not change. She stated that she underwent operation on 10.01.2002 for appendicitis, which, according to her, was caused on account of the highhanded acts on the part of the appellant, and that he did not even care to see her when she was in hospital. She pleaded that unable to bear the harassment caused to her, she had to approach the Police under the relevant provisions of law.

Through its order, dated 15.10.2004, the trial Court dismissed the O.P. Hence, this appeal.

The appellant argued in person. Apart from reiterating the contents of the petition, he stated that the acts and omissions on the part of the respondent constitute cruelty. Placing reliance upon certain precedents, he argued that the very fact that both of them are living separately for the past several years and that he was acquitted in the criminal case filed by the respondent is sufficient to hold that a case is made out for divorce. He contends that every effort was made by him to live with the respondent, but the latter harassed him. The appellant submits that the respondent created problems not only to him, but also to his parents, at Deverakonda. The respondent is also said to have illegally occupied certain properties with the help of anti-social elements. He submits that the trial Court ought to have granted the decree for divorce.

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that it was the appellant, who subjected the respondent to cruelty ever since the marriage and in the interest of the children, the respondent was bearing all that. He submits that the trial Court has analysed not only the oral and documentary evidence, but also had the opportunity to interact with the parties and refused the relief of divorce. He submits that if the parties herein are living separately, the appellant is squarely responsible for the same.

It appears that the O.P. was initially filed under Section 10 of the Act and later on, the relief referable to Section 13 (i) (ia) of the Act was claimed. The trial Court framed only one point for its consideration, namely “Whether the appellant is entitled to the decree for divorce?

On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P1 to P25 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R3 were filed. The O.P. was dismissed.

The point that arises for consideration before us is as to “whether the appellant made out a case for divorce against his wife, the respondent?”

The marriage took place in the year 1998 and it appears that discard between the parties became acute by the year 2000. The respondent is said to have lef