JUDGMENT :

K. Lakshman, J.

Heard Mr. K.V. Mallikarjuna Rao, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Munuga Sateesh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent.

2. Appellaxnt is the husband and Respondent in the wife. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common order and decree dated 05.07.2017 in O.P. No. 1499 of 2012 and O.P. No. 35 of 2016 passed by the Additional Family Court at Hyderabad, the Appellant-husband preferred the present appeals.

3. The Appellant–husband filed an appeal vide FCA No. 349 of 2017 against the order passed in O.P. No. 35 of 2016 whereby the petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter, “the Act”) by the Respondent–wife was allowed.

4. The Appellant also filed an appeal vide FCA No. 352 of 2017 aggrieved by the Order passed in O.P. No. 1499 of 2012 whereby the petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Act filed by the Appellant-husband was dismissed.

5. The Appellant–husband and the Respondent–wife got married on 05.11.2009 and their marriage was performed as per Hindu rites and customs. Out of the wedlock, on 26.09.2010, they were blessed with a daughter named Chaitra.

6. The Appellant-husband sought dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty in O.P. No. 1499 of 2012 and to dismiss the petition for restitution of conjugal rights in O.P. No. 35 of 2016 contending as follows:

i. The marriage between the parties was performed on 05.11.2009.

ii. The Respondent’s behavior was peculiar and temperamental. His friends and neighbours suggested him to take her to a psychiatrist, but she did not cooperate.

iii. She used to frequently leave the matrimonial home for longer duration without informing him. She developed suicidal tendency and threatened him.

iv. Mr. T. Adisesha Reddy, an elderly person, counselled the Respondent to lead a happy matrimonial life with the Appellant, but she in turn shouted at him and threatened him with dire consequences.

v. On 06.03.2011, when he returned from office, he was surprised to find out that the Respondent had vacated the house taking away all the jewelry, gift articles, and valuables.

vi. As he failed to trace the location of the Respondent, he engaged the services of a private detective agency “REAL EYE”. He found that she was at Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad. He visited her but her mother spoke with him through the window and did not allow him enter the house. She humiliated and insulted him. She did not even let him meet the daughter.

vii. On 15.06.2011, his mother approached Andhra Mahila Sabha and arranged a meeting on 22.06.2011. A Notice was sent to the Respondent, which she managed to return and they were forced to re-fix the counselling to 29.06.2011, but she deliberately did not respond.

viii. He also sent Legal Notices dated 10.06.2011 and 08.12.2011 calling upon the Respondent to join his company, but she refused to receive the notice, and all his efforts failed.

ix. She filed a false police complaint with the KPHB PS insisting the police to arrest him. He and his family were criminally intimated and cruelly treated. She exhorted the police to book a case under Section 498-A of the IPC.

x. She and her family declared that the Respondent would not join his company and demanded that the Appellant should join in as “Illarekam” (matrilocal residence) or obtain divorce by mutual consent and deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- in the name of their daughter.

xi. He sent a Legal Notice dated 21.08.2012 calling upon the Respondent to attend the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar on 10.09.2012 to submit and sign a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Act. The Respondent managed to return the same, and another notice dated 28.09.2012 was issued, which was returned as unserved.

xii. The efforts made for reconciliation had failed and their marriage had irretrievably broken down. There is no possibility of reunion. The Responden