JUDGMENT :

Madhuresh Prasad, J.

1. The petitioner/ appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29^th July, 2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 6^th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Matrimonial Suit No. 117 of 2009. The Court has declined the petitioner’s prayer for dissolution of marriage with the respondent, and instead granted a decree of judicial separation with effect from the date of decree, prepared under the seal of the Court on 24.09.2015. The Court has also directed for payment of alimony at the rate of Rs. 3000/- to the respondent and Rs. 4000/- towards maintenance of the minor daughter, both amounts by 7^th of each month.

2. Before examining the correctness and legality of the impugned judgment, we, notice the relevant facts, which are not in dispute. The marriage was solemnized on 21.05.1998 and consummated. The respondent was appointed as a teacher in Pakdaha Balipur F P School in the month of December 1999. A daughter was born out of wedlock on 5^th May, 2000. The petitioner, on 24.04.2009 brought an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (‘HMA’ for brevity) praying for a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent, cost of the suit, and any other relief/ reliefs as per law. The same was numbered as Mat Suit No. 117 of 2009.

3. The petitioner asserted that within few days after the marriage, the respondent started to misbehave with the petitioner and his parents and frequently left her matrimonial home without any consent or permission. He has also alleged use of filthy language and assault upon the petitioner’s parents in his absence, and neglect to look after the day to day affairs of the matrimonial home. Though petitioner made efforts to adjust and requested the respondent to mend her ways, she did not accede to such request. The respondent created pressure upon the petitioner to live with her at Barrackpore at her paternal house. Efforts to reconcile the issue with intervention of the relatives and parents of the respondent have yielded no result.

4. On 21.05.2003, it is alleged that the respondent deserted the petitioner and left her matrimonial home. She took all her belongings and the minor child, never to return to the matrimonial home. The efforts by the petitioner to bring her back to the matrimonial home to resume conjugal life only resulted in bitterness. Having waited considerably and left with no chance of reconciliation between the parties he filed the suit.

5. The case of the respondent on the other hand is that there was paucity of accommodation at the petitioner’s parent’s house. For convenience of attending her duties, on account of her recent appointment as a teacher; and subsequently to facilitate better care of the minor daughter born in May 2000, she continued her service while staying with her minor daughter at her father’s house. Otherwise there was no-one to look after the minor daughter. These were the compelling circumstances due to which it was mutually decided for her staying at her father’s residence. When the minor daughter attained the age of 2 – 3 years, the respondent had returned to her husband’s house at Behala, but again due to difficulties in attending to her duties at the school, she at the instance of the petitioner used to stay at her mother’s house. She would come with her minor daughter to stay at the matrimonial home at Behala on holidays like puja vacation, summer vacation and other festivals. She has stated about celebration of her daughter’s birthday on 5th May, 2007 at Behala and that she performed all the spiritual ceremonies with the petitioner at his house at Behala after the demise of the petitioner’s father. She has denied the allegations of the petitioner of abandoning her conjugal life or of using any filthy language or assault either to the petitioner or his parents. She, however, has stated that the petitioner’s sister was persistent in her efforts to break the marriage of the p