M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

1. These two appeals are preferred by the respondent (wife) in HMOP No. 135 of 2002 and petitioner in HMOP No. 170 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada (hereinafter will be referred as "trial Court") challenging the common order dated 23.8.2005, whereunder, the petition filed by the wife, i.e. HMOP No. 170 of 2002, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") was dismissed, while allowing the petition filed by the husband, i.e., HMOP No. 135 of 2002, under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(iii) of the Act by dissolving the marriage between them. For convenience of reference, the ranks given to the parties before the trial Court in HMOP No. 135 of 2002, as petitioner-husband and respondent-wife, will be adopted throughout the judgment.

2. The petitioner-husband filed petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and also on the ground that the respondent-wife is suffering from mental disorder, alleging that the marriage between them was performed on 3.11.1995, but there was no monetary transactions between the parties either before or after the marriage. Soon after the marriage, the respondent-wife joined the petitioner-husband to lead marital life at Dowlaiswaram. But neither the parents of the respondent-wife nor her sisters followed her for Dowlaiswaram as a matter of custom.

3. The petitioner-husband laid foundation in the pleadings for the grounds under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(iii) of the Act, pointed out several instances of mental disorder and cruelty and the following are the main instances among them.

"(a) Since the date of marriage, the respondent-wife used to tell the petitioner-husband that she did not like him and her marriage was performed by force and she liked a personality equal to her third brother-in-law, but she married a short and flabby man (the petitioner-husband) and she developed suspicious mentality. The respondent-wife even forgetting to switch off the gas cylinder, but when the petitioner-husband switched off the gas cylinder, she used to blame him that he likes to kill her by releasing gas.

(b) On 23.11.1995, the respondent-wife was taken by her parents to Kakinada in the month of December, 1995, but there was no change in the behaviour of the respondent-wife. On the other hand, in the second week of December, 1995, the petitioner-husband vomited number of times after eating food. On enquiry, she informed that she did not mix anything in the food and asked him to shut his mouth. While so, in the end of December, 1995, the petitioner-husband and respondent-wife went to Hyderabad, as he was appearing for Group-I main examination, he dropped her at her sister's house at Hyderabad, and after completion of examination, in most casual manner, he asked whether she was feeling bored, then she abruptly replied "shut-up and don't talk unnecessarily". Later, the petitioner- husband and respondent-wife returned to Dowlaiswaram.

(c) As the respondent-wife became pregnant, she always used to tell that she wanted to get the pregnancy terminated while saying that she should not give birth to a person like the petitioner-husband.

(d) During 1996, whenever the petitioner-husband used to sleep during day time after attending night shifts, the respondent-wife used to pull his eyelids and fist on his chest so that she cannot sleep. Therefore, he suffered seriously due to sleeplessness and even when he was seriously ill lying on bed for a day, she did not attend on him. On the other hand, she commented that "You are like he-buffalo (sick) and why should I render service to you. If you die, I will get rid of the worse and that I will get your job and property." On account of such comments, the petitioner-husband was put to humiliation and suffered mentally.

(e) In the month of May, 1996, the respondent-wife went to her parents' house on her own accord an