L. Narasimha Reddy, J.— The marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 16.4.1983 and they were also blessed with two children. The respondent was initially employed in Armed Forces and worked at various places. After retirement from the Army, he secured employment in Customs and Central Excise Department and was posted at Visakhapatnam. In the year 1997, the appellant is said to have left Visakhapatnam for Kakinada, where her parents were residing, on account of harassment and ill-treatment caused by the respondent.

2. The respondent filed O.P.No.200 of 2011 in the Court of the III-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada under Section 13 (1 a) of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short ‘the Act’) for divorce. He pleaded that through her acts and omissions, the appellant caused cruelty to him and that the same constituted a ground for divorce. He stated that after leaving his company in 1997, the appellant filed M.C.No.71 of 2005 in the Court of the IV-Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, which was transferred to the Court of the V-Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada and renumbered as M.C.No.140 of 2008 and that it was allowed on 10.12.2008 awarding a sum of Rs.2,000 per month as maintenance. He further stated that with a view to procure the presence of the appellant, he filed O.P.No.34 of 2009 under Section 9 of the Act and though a decree was passed on 28.7.2010 in that O.P., the appellant did not join him.

3. The appellant opposed O.P.No.200 of 2011 by filing a counter. She stated that in the year 1997, the respondent beat her and has driven away her and their children, and finding no other place to go, she went to the house of her parents near Kakinada and that the children were brought up by her parents. She stated that O.P.No.34 of 2009 was filed by the respondent, just for the sake of it, and even during those proceedings, she expressed her willingness to join him.

4. Through its order, dated 27.6.2013, the trial Court allowed O.P.No.200 of 2011 and granted decree for divorce. The same is challenged in this appeal.

5. Sri Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record properly and had erroneously passed the decree for divorce. He contends that even if the grounds pleaded by the respondent are taken as true, at the most, they constitute desertion and there was absolutely no basis for the trial Court to come to the conclusion that the ground of cruelty is proved. He submits that none other than the daughter of the parties herein deposed as RW1 and categorically stated that herself, her mother and her brother, had to leave Visakhapatnam from the house of the respondent on account of the physical assault by him. He submits that whatever may have been the intention of the respondent in filing O.P.No.34 of 2009 pretending to be inclined to join the appellant, his true colors came out when he categorically stated in his cross-examination that he is not at all willing to live with her.

6. Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the very fact that the appellant left the respondent way back in the year 1997 and despite repeated efforts made by his client, she did not come back, discloses that the harassment of very high magnitude was caused to the respondent. He submits that even after the decree was passed in O.P.No.34 of 2009 and notice was issued, the appellant did not join the respondent. He submits that the trial Court has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and arrived at the conclusion that the ground of cruelty was proved; and that there do not exist any grounds to interfere with the same.

7. The fact that the parties herein were married and they were also blessed with two children is not in dispute. Till the year 1997, there were no disputes whatever between the parties and they were living happily at various places. The start