C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against order and decree, dated 01.12.2005, in Original Petition No.19 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Sangareddy (for short, ‘the lower Court’).

2. The appellant has married the respondent on 13.06.1982, after the death of his first wife. A son and daughter were born out of their wedlock. The appellant specifically alleged that the respondent has left his company without intimation, at the instigation of her brother one Vijay Babu. He has further alleged that the respondent was always insisting for transfer of the properties in her name and, as the appellant turned down the demands of the respondent, she left his company and filed Maintenance Case No.87 of 1995 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad on 07.12.1995; wherein, an order was passed on 10.04.1997 rejecting the claim for maintenance. It is his further case that there was no matrimonial relationship between himself and the respondent after the birth of their daughter and son and till the date of filing of the petition, on 16.06.2004, for dissolution of marriage.

3. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations made by the appellant.

4. In support of his case, the appellant has examined himself as PW.1 and also examined PWs.2 and 3 and got Ex.A-1 marked on his side. On behalf of the respondent, she examined herself as RW.1 and she has not adduced any documentary evidence. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the lower Court has dismissed the Original Petition.

5. The appellant has filed the Original Petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (For short, ‘the Act’). Clauses (ia) and (ib) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act read as under:

"13. Divorce: (1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party:

(i) ……………….

(ia) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or

(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition."

6. From the above reproduced provision, it is evident that for securing the decree for dissolution of marriage it is enough if the appellant is able to satisfy either of the two clauses i.e., (ia) or (ib). A perusal of the record shows that in her evidence the respondent while denying that she has deserted the appellant, however, admitted that since November, 1995 she was residing in Nizamabad and she filed a Maintenance Case thereat. She has further admitted that she has shown her address at Nizamabad. According to her, she resided at Nizamabad between 1995 and 1998 and, thereafter, she stayed at the house of her mother at Warangal.

7. Ex.A-1 is a certified copy of order, dated 10.04.1997, in M.C. No.87 of 1995, on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif at Nizamabad.

In the said order, a finding was rendered by the Court holding that the respondent herself left the house of the appellant, on her own, without any sufficient cause or reason and that, therefore, the appellant cannot be said to have neglected her to maintain.

8. Though it appears from the pleadings of the parties that the rejection of claim of the respondent for maintenance under Ex.A-1 was, subsequently, set-aside by this Court and, on remand, the respondent was granted maintenance, the fact however remains that the respondent continued to live separately since 1995 till the appellant has filed the O.P. for divorce and even thereafter also she was living separately. Except taking a stand in her cross-examination that she was necked out, no evidence was placed by her in order to prove this plea. She appeared to be rest content with securing maintenance and living separately. She has not made any attempt, wh