THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.1646 of 2001, C.M.A.No.1852 of 2001, C.M.A.No.2034 of 2001 and C.M.A.No.2289 of 2001 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.V.Seethapathy These appeals arise out of a common order dated 15-5-2001 in O.S.No.16/1999, O.P.No.42/1999, O.P.No.29/2000 and O.P.No.28/2000, on the file of Family Court, Kurnool. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records. The appellant in all the appeals is the husband of the respondent. O.P.42/1999 is filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights. O.P.29/2000 is filed by the husband for custody of the elder daughter by name Ramya Shilpa. O.P.28/2000 was also filed by the husband under Section 13 (1) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty. O.S.16/1999 was filed by the wife claiming past maintenance for a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- and future maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month for herself and Rs.2,000/- each to her two daughters. By the impugned order the learned Judge, Family Court, Kurnool dismissed the petitions filed by the husband for divorce and for custody of the minor daughter and allowed the petitions filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights and also for maintenance directing the husband to pay past maintenance in a sum of Rs.72,000/- and to pay future maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.1,000/- per month each to her two daughters. Aggrieved by the said common order, the husband filed the present four appeals. It is not disputed that the marriage of the appellant and the respondent took place on 8-5-1989 at Dhone and they lived happily for some time and during the wed lock a girl named Ramya Shilpa was born to them on 10-7-1991, and subsequently they gave birth to a second girl child on 30-12-1996. It is also not disputed that ever since the birth of the second child there was no re-union between them. The husband filed the petition for divorce on the ground that the wife deserted him without any valid and justifiable reason because he did not oblige her demand that he should set up a separate residence away from his parents. He has also filed petition for custody of the minor child on the ground that he is the natural guardian. By way of retaliation, the wife filed application for restitution of conjugal rights and also petition for maintenance. During the enquiry, the wife examined herself as P.W.1 and the husband was examined as R.W.1 and another witness was examined as RW.2. The daughter Ramya Shilpa was examined as C,W.1. No documents were marked on behalf of the wife and Ex.B.1 complaint given by the wife against the husband to his departmental officials was marked. Exs.C.1 to C.5 were also marked. Admittedly, both the parties lived together and led a happy marital life ever since the marriage that took place in 1989 till the birth of the second child in 1996. It is not the case of the wife that she was forcibly driven out of the house for any particular reason or cause or that there was any event or incident which culminated in such action. Admittedly, after the birth of the second child she has not returned to the matrimonial home. The trial Court on a critical scrutiny of the evidence of the wife and the husband and also the evidence of the father of the husband has held that there was absolutely no evidence to show that the wife has voluntarily left the matrimonial home. RW.2, the father of the husband testified that the respondent was a very nice lady and she never quarreled with any one in the house. The testimony of RW.2 does not support the version of RW.1. It is also not the case of the husband that he has at any time made efforts to bring the wife back to his house. There was absolutely no occasion for any quarrel between the wife and the in-laws as can be seen from the evidence of RW.2, who is no other than the father of the appellant. From the evidence, it is very apparent that the appellant himself deserted the wife and never made any attempts to bring her back. The allegations made by the appellant husband that the wife deserted him and left the matrimonial home for no valid reason remained totally un-substantiated. On the other hand, he has taken different and shifting stands in different applications filed by him which throw any amount of doubt over the veracity of his version. The trial Court has therefore rightly held that the husband is not entitled for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and on the other hand the wife was entitled for decree of restitution of conjugal rights. It is stated that the elder daughter who is examined as CW.1 has since become a major and is pursuing her engineering course and she was also examined before the trial Court as a witness. Having regard to the material available on record, the trial Court held that the daughter at that time was aged 10 years and attained the age of discretion and she wishes that her parents be with her so that she could be happy and in case her father is not going to take her mother, she intends to reside with her mother and does not want to go into the custody of the father. The finding recorded by the trial Court at that time in view of the tender age of the girl child directing that the child shall continue to be in the custody of her mother and she need not go to the custody of the father, does not call for any interference by this Court. In fact, since the child has become major now and is pursuing her engineering course, it is left to her to choose the place of her stay and she cannot be compelled to remain either with the mother or with the father. Regarding the quantum of maintenance, the trial Court having taken the statements of the parties and also the relative assets and liabilities and the financial position and the requirements of the mother and her two children who are girls, fixed the amount of maintenance at Rs.2,000/- per month to the mother and Rs.1,000/- per month each to the two daughters. The said amount of maintenance as fixed by the trial Court is held to be just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the same also does not call for any interference. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the trial Court dismissing the applications for divorce and custody of the child filed by the husband and allowing the petitions filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights and maintenance does not warrant any interference by this Court. In the result, all the four appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J Dated:18th January, 2010 *Grk