The court upheld the dissolution of marriage based on the ground of mental cruelty and addressed the issue of maintenance for the wife and the minor female child, with provisions for future modification of the maintenance order.

JUDGMENT :

1. We find no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree dated 15th May, 2012 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Rampurhat, Birbhum in the suit (Matrimonial suit No. 46 of 2011) granting dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce.

2. We are of the opinion, that if ultimately the accused is acquitted, the initiation of a proceeding under Section 498A of the Penal Code, 1860 is bound to reach considerable mental agony and pain to him. In this case, such a proceeding was initiated against the respondent husband.

3. The respondent was arrested, thereafter a criminal case started against him, charges framed and trial held. Thereafter he was acquitted.

4. The marriage was solemnised on 17th January, 2000.

5. It is an admitted position that the appellant wife left the matrimonial home in 2004. Although she tried to make out a case of desertion in the court below, it was not proved. Hence, there is no finding of desertion by the learned Judge.

6. In those circumstances, we are of the view that the ultimate finding reached by the learned Judge that the marriage should be dissolved on the ground of infliction of mental cruelty by the appellant defendant wife upon the respondent plaintiff husband was well founded.

7. Now we come to the question of maintenance.

8. As maintenance pendente lite, the respondent husband is paying Rs. 27,000/- per month to the wife for her maintenance and for the maintenance of a minor female child aged about 14/15 years.

9. We think, this amount of maintenance is sufficient for the time being. Let this maintenance amount be paid by the husband to the wife punctually by the 7th of each month until further order, as permanent alimony.

10. This maintenance amount shall stand increased by 5% every year from May, 2020 onwards.

11. The female child is still young and adolescent. We grant liberty to the parties to apply for modification of this order in case of increased financial need of the child for the purposes of her education, marriage etc.

12. We also grant leave to the respondent to apply for variation of the maintenance amount when his daughter becomes ineligible to receive maintenance.

13. This order will not prevent the parties from arriving at a settlement for a lump sum amount representing maintenance for the wife and the child. In that case, a suitable application be made before this court.

14. With the above order, this appeal (FAT 344 of 2012) is disposed of.