IMPORTANT POINT
When husband and wife are living separately for long and there is no cances of reunion, divorce should not be refused.

C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy.—Since the parties in both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are common, they are heard together and taken up for disposal.

2. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4441 of 2004 arises out of order, dated 31.8.2004, in O.P.No.60 of 2002, whereby the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole has dismissed the said O.P. filed by the appellant for dissolution of marriage with the respondent.

3. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.621 of 2006 is filed by the appellant feeling aggrieved by the decree passed in O.P.No.18 of 2005, filed under Section-9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act) for restitution of conjugal rights with the appellant, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

4. In O.P.No.60 of 2002, the main ground on which the appellant has sought for dissolution of marriage with the respondent is that she has deserted him without reasonable cause and that she has been refusing to join him. In support of his plea, the appellant has examined himself as P.W-1 and the respondent has examined herself as R.W-1 and also examined R.Ws.2 and 3 on her behalf. In his evidence as P.W-1, the appellant has deposed that his marriage with the respondent was performed on 07.8.1987; that he has taken the respondent to his house to lead marital life; that right from the inception, he was not feeling happy as the respondent developed some sort of aversion towards him and he did not have happy conjugal life; that despite his unhappiness, the appellant has tolerated the behaviour of the respondent; that in the later half year of 1998, when she was pregnant, the respondent has left him and gone to her parents house; that though the appellant has gone to his father-in-laws house requesting him to send the respondent back with him, the latter has not joined him; and that the mediation held in this regard also proved futile. The appellant further deposed that after the child was born, he has again requested the respondent to join him in October, 1999; that instead of joining him, the respondent filed O.P.No.90 of 2000 for dissolution of marriage, which was dismissed for non- prosecution; and that the respondent has later filed a criminal case against the appellant under Section-498-A IPC, which was closed by the Police after due enquiry. The appellant further deposed that as he filed O.P.No.60 of 2002 for grant of decree for divorce, the respondent has filed O.P.No.11 of 2003 for custody of the child as a counter-blast.

5. The respondent examined herself as R.W-1 and deposed that right from the beginning, the appellant was demanding heavy money; that about 7 or 8 months after the marriage, as Rs.1 lakh was not given to him, he has developed dislike towards her; that in June, 1998, when she was pregnant, the appellant has beaten and necked her out to bring a sum of Rs.1 lakh and as she had no other go, she started living with her parents; that the appellant was not willing to take her back as the latters parents were not in a position to pay the sum of Rs.1 lakh demanded by the appellant; that in March, 2001, she went to the matrimonial home along with an elder by name Mohan Rao; that after six months of her joining him, the appellant again started demanding money; that in the month of December, 2001, the respondents in-laws have necked her out of the house for non-payment of additional dowry; that again in March, 2002, she was driven out of home; that with great difficulty a sum of Rs.10,000/- was arranged to be paid to the appellant through an elder by name Subba Rao; that again in June, 2002, the remaining amount of Rs.90,000/- was demanded; that her in-laws went to her father and demanded the sum of Rs.90,000/-; and that vexed with the behaviour of the appellant and his parents, she has filed a criminal complaint before the learned III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole. R.Ws.2 and 3, who have acquaintance with the family of the respondent, sought to support the plea of the respondent by stating that a