JUDGMENT : P.Sree Sudha, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Order dated 11.10.2023 in H.M.O.P.No.3 of 2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mulugu. 2. Respondent herein/husband has filed an application against the appellant/wife before the trial Court vide H.M.O.P.No.03 of 2022, under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for grant of divorce by dissolving his marriage with the appellant. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides allowed the application granting a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the appellant and respondent. Aggrieved by the said Order, appellant/wife preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/husband filed the H.M.O.P.No.03 of 2022, stating that his marriage was took place 17.02.2018, with the appellant herein. Later, their marriage was consummated. The appellant/wife insulted him on several occasions in the presence of relatives and friends. When she insisted him to shift their residence from Katapur village to Edulagattupalli village, where her parents are residing, he refused for the same, as he is having old age parents and thus she started harassing him physically and mentally. On 31.05.2018, she left his conjugal society without any reason. He approached the appellant/wife and her parents several times and requested her to join his conjugal society, but she refused for the same. In the last week of August, 2018, his parents and relatives approached the appellant and requested her to join with him, but she did not come forward. Several Panchayats were held between them. Finally, he got issued legal notice to the appellant/wife. She received the same and got issued evasive reply with false allegations and gave complaint before the Police, Manakondur on 27.09.2018. The Police registered a case in Cr.No.241 of 2018, under Section 498-A of IPC. As there is no scope of reunion, he filed the application for divorce. 4. In the counter filed by the appellant/wife in H.M.O.P.No.03 of 2022, she stated that her parents agreed to give Rs.20,00,000/- towards dowry to the respondent/husband, out of which they paid Rs.14,00,000/- at the time of marriage. Apart from that they also gave 15 Tulas of gold ornaments and Ac.1–00 gts of land with other household articles to the respondent. Respondent/husband was working in a private plastic Company and informed to her that he was getting Rs.40,000/- per month. Apart from that they also gave 15 Tulas of gold ornaments and Ac.1–00 gts of land with other household articles to the respondent. Respondent/husband was working in a private plastic Company and informed to her that he was getting Rs.40,000/- per month. The mother of the respondent harassed her physically and mentally by selling the land given by her parents at the time of marriage and further demanded her to bring the balance dowry of Rs.6,00,000/-. On that aspect, galata was made by the respondent and his mother on 12.05.2018. Respondent/husband used to come home late and goes to movies without her. She also made allegations against her father-in-law. She further stated that there was a panchayat on 18.08.2018, the respondent admitted his guilt and promised not to repeat the same in future. She gave complaint on 07.09.2018 and it was registered as Cr.No.241 of 2018, under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of D.P Act, on 27.09.2018. She and her family members requested the respondent to take her back with an undertaking that he will not harass her in future. As she vexed with the attitude of the respondent and his family members, she was residing with her aged parents. She is having threat to her life from the respondent/husband. 5. Respondent/husband examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 on his behalf. Appellant/wife examined herself as R.W.1 and also got examined R.W.2 on her behalf, but she has not filed any documents. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on both sides, dissolved the marriage by a decree of divorce. Aggrieved by the said Order, appellant/wife preferred the present appeal. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant/wife mainly contended that appellant and respondent resided at Bhongir and their marriage took place at the residence of the respondent i.e., Jaya Shankar Bhupalpally, as such the trial Court has no territorial jurisdiction. Appellant was ready to join the respondent during the pendency of the proceedings, but the respondent/husband clearly stated that he refused to receive her. The trial Court erred in concluding that both of them lived separately for 4 ½ years, as such the possibility of reunion was nil. The trial Court erred in concluding that respondent was subjected to cruelty in the hand of the appellant. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court. 7. The trial Court erred in concluding that both of them lived separately for 4 ½ years, as such the possibility of reunion was nil. The trial Court erred in concluding that respondent was subjected to cruelty in the hand of the appellant. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court. 7. Respondent/husband in his Cross-examination stated that he completed M.Sc. and he worked in a factory of manufacturing of plastic chairs. He was doing a private job at Bhuvanagiri with a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-. Appellant/wife lived with him only for one month. He also stated that appellant sent him to the jail and he was in jail for two days. She herself left the house without any reason, as such he was not willing to live with her. 8. Appellant/wife in her Cross-examination stated that she completed her Post Graduation. She is also having one sister, who is also a divorcee. Though she stated that her father is having Acs.7–00 gts of agricultural land, she has not filed any document to that effect and she has also not filed any document to show that her parents gave Ac.1–00 gts of land to the respondent at the time of marriage. Even in the complaint given to the police, she has not made any complaint against her father-in-law. She has not mentioned the specific dates on which the respondent and his mother harassed her and insisted her to sell away the land to pay additional dowry. 9. Admittedly, appellant/wife went to her parents house on 13.05.2018. She stated that respondent sent her for signing of Kalyana Laxmi Scheme papers at M.R.O office. On 22.06.2018, she fell down and sustained fracture, even then her husband did not take her back. R.W.2 is the close relative of the respondent and he is one of the elders of the marriage. There is no dispute regarding the marriage between the appellant and respondent. Respondent/husband gave legal notice to the appellant/wife on 17.09.2018, in which he stated that appellant/wife left his Company on 13.05.2018 and in spite of several Panchayats, she did not join him, as such requested for divorce by mutual consent. Appellant/wife gave reply notice on 06.10.2018, in which she stated that her parents agreed to give Rs.20,00,000/-, 5 Tulas of gold and Ac.1–00 gts of land to the respondent. Appellant/wife gave reply notice on 06.10.2018, in which she stated that her parents agreed to give Rs.20,00,000/-, 5 Tulas of gold and Ac.1–00 gts of land to the respondent. Out of Rs.20,00,000/-, her parents gave Rs.14,00,000/- at the time of marriage. Later, respondent and her mother demanding Rs.6,00,000/-, sent her out in July, 2018, as such she gave complaint to the Police on 07.09.2018. After enquiry, on 27.09.2018, Police registered a case in Cr.No.241 of 2018, under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of D.P.Act. She further stated that she never insisted the respondent to shift their residence, even now she is ready to join the society of the respondent and she is not willing to give divorce on mutual consent. 10. The contention of the respondent/husband is that appellant deserted him in the year 2018 and did not join him in spite of conducting several panchayats and even after issuing of legal notice, whereas appellant/wife contended that she never neglected him and he sent her out for signing on the papers of Kalyana Laxmi Scheme. As per the legal notice, appellant went to her parents’ house on 13.05.2018 and O.P for divorce was filed in the year 2022. Though the appellant/wife stated that she is interested to join him, she did not file O.P for conjugal rights at least after filing of the divorce O.P by the respondent. However, she filed criminal complaints against him. In view of the criminal complaints relationship between the appellant and respondent got strained and respondent is not inclined to take her back. Appellant stated that respondent/husband demanded additional dowry along with his mother and harassed her mentally and physically and she also made allegations against her father-in-law, who is aged about 63 years. Though she gave complaint against the respondent/husband, she has not made said allegations against her father-in-law in the complaint, however, in the year 2022, when she filed counter, she came up with the said allegations against her father-in-law. Respondent/husband stated that appellant/wife was not residing with him and left him without any reason and she was not interested to live in his house, she also made allegations against his father and several panchayats were held between them, whereas appellant/wife stated that respondent was addicted to alcohol and coming late in the nights and going to movies alone. Respondent/husband stated that appellant/wife was not residing with him and left him without any reason and she was not interested to live in his house, she also made allegations against his father and several panchayats were held between them, whereas appellant/wife stated that respondent was addicted to alcohol and coming late in the nights and going to movies alone. Considering all these aspects, trial Court rightly granted the decree of divorce and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said Order. 11. In the result, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed by confirming the Order of the trial Court in H.M.O.P.No.03 of 2022, dated 11.10.2023. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.