THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA C.M.A. No. 1839 of 2003 Judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) This C.M.A. is directed against the order dated 04.03.2003 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda, allowing the petition in O.P. No. 37 of 2001, filed by the respondent under Section 13(1) and (1b) of the Hindu Marriage Ac, 19545, for dissolution of his marriage with the appellant, by a decree of divorce. The learned counsel for the appellant-wife submitted that since the respondent-husband was living with another woman, the appellant had reasonable cause to live separately from the respondent, but the Court below without considering the said aspect, has committed a grave error in holding that the appellant deserted the respondent, and allowing the O.P. filed by the respondent, seeking dissolution of his marriage with the appellant, by reason of the order under appeal. Hence, he prayed that the order under appeal be set aside and the C.M.A. be allowed. The learned counsel for he respondent-husband, on the other hand, submitted that as the appellant-wife without any reasonable cause, left the society of the respondent and deserted him, the Court below has rightly allowed the O.P. filed by the respondent for dissolution of his marriage with the appellant, by reason of the order under appeal, and no interference is called for therewith. He thus prayed that the C.M.A. be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-wife and the learned counsel for the respondent-husband and perused the order under appeal. The facts that are not in dispute are - the appellant and the respondent got married, and out of their wedlock, they are blessed with two children, a daughter and a son. The daughter is married, while the son is studying, and he is being educated by the respondent. While so, alleging that the appellant deserted and is staying away from him, the respondent filed the present O.P. The appellant contested the O.P. stating that the respondent subjected her to harassment, and forced her to give consent for second marriage, and when she refused, he drove her out of the house and is living with another woman, and therefore, she is living separately. The Court below upon considering the evidence placed by the respective parties, disbelieved the version of the appellant, and on the ground that she deserted the respondent without any reasonable cause, allowed the O.P. filed by the respondent and granted decree of divorce by reason of the order under appeal. Though the appellant contended that she did not desert the respondent, and that as the respondent was living with another woman, she was forced to live separately, the fact remains, the Court below upon appreciation of the evidence, found that the appellant herself has admitted that she voluntarily left the company of the respondent, and that though she stated that the respondent was having illicit relationship with another lady, she did not name who the woman is. However, the appellant without pleading in her counter, in her evidence stated that the respondent after the death of his colleague, namely Narayana Reddy, developed illicit intimacy with his wife, namely Aswarthamm, and is living with her, and that both of them had driven her out of the house. If really, both the respondent and the said Aswarthamma, had driven her out of the house, nothing prevented the appellant from taking such plea in the counter, but admittedly, the appellant has not taken any such plea in the counter, in the absence of any such pleading in the counter, the Court below disbelieved the version of the appellant, that she was driven out of the house by the respondent, and more so when the appellant herself admitted that she voluntarily left the company of the respondent. The appellant, it appears, has made this improvement in her evidence, taking note of the admission made by the respondent in his evidence that his family and the family of his colleague was living in one house. However, the respondent in his cross-examination has stated that his family and the family of his colleague, are living in separate portions of the same house. The Court below found that merely because the family of the respondent and the family of his colleague are living in the same house, it cannot be said that the respondent was having illicit relationship with the wife of his colleague after his death, particularly when they were said to be living in separate portions in the same house. Thus the Court below came to the conclusion that the appellant deserted the respondent, and that the desertion was three to four years prior to the filing of the present O.P. for divorce and that it continued till the date of its filing, and having come to such conclusion, by reason of the order under appeal, allowed the O.P. filed by the respondent and dissolved his marriage with the appellant by granting decree of divorce, and we find no reason whatsoever to interfere therewith, particularly when the same is based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The C.M.A. is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. __________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J. Dated: 30th December, 2010. KSR