Dissolution of marriage requires proof of grave and weighty conduct amounting to legal cruelty or desertion. Vague allegations or the existence of cross-litigation do not suffice. Divorce is only permissible when marital relations have deteriorated to such an extent that cohabitation is impossible.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :

1. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18-01-2021 (decree signed on 25-01-2021) passed by Sri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 142/2019 whereby and whereunder, the suit preferred by the respondent herein for dissolution of his marriage with the appellant has been allowed, subject to payment of Rs. 15 lakhs as permanent alimony.

3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the learning trial court.

4. The petitioner/husband (respondent herein) had filed a suit for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent/wife (appellant herein) under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in which it has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnised with the respondent on 06-07- 2006 at Sector 9-B, Bokaro Steel City, as per Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, a son was born who is aged 9 years and who is residing with the petitioner. It has been stated that the respondent always used to quarrel with the petitioner and his family members on trivial matters and insisted on leaving his ailing parents. The respondent had an illicit relationship with one Sanjeev Kumar Nirala, a contractor, and she used to spend her maximum time with Sanjeev Kumar Nirala and had also given her ornaments to him. On 22-10-2016, when the petitioner went in search of his wife to her parents' house, he found her in a compromising position with Sanjeev Kumar Nirala and when the petitioner tried to bring back the respondent home, he was assaulted by the respondent with the help of Sanjeev Kumar Nirala. The petitioner had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in Original Maintenance Suit No. 354/2016 which, however, was dismissed on 28-01-2019. After 10 years of marriage, the respondent had filed a criminal case against the petitioner and his family members in Complaint Case No. 242/2016 on the allegation of demand of dowry. The petitioner had provided the best of facilities, but the respondent had withdrawn herself from the society of the petitioner without any reasonable cause. The father of the respondent had grabbed a huge amount of money from the petitioner for purchase of a residential flat. The respondent has already received an amount of Rs. 1,72,500/- from the petitioner in terms of the order passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 211/2016. The respondent has deserted the petitioner since 19-01-2016 without any reasonable cause.

5. The respondent, on being noticed, had appeared and filed a written statement in which it has been stated that on the occasion of Chhath Pooja in the year 2015, the respondent was assaulted by the petitioner at night in presence of the uncle of the respondent. On 30-11-2015, while the respondent was asleep, she was assaulted by the petitioner with fists and iron rod and on 18-01-2016, the respondent was once again subjected to assault by the petitioner and since then the respondent is staying at her parent's place along with her son. However, on 29-06-2016 the petitioner had forcibly taken away the son of the respondent when he was returning from school and since then her son is residing with the petitioner. In the special mediation drive on 24-06-2019, despite the willingness of the respondent to stay with the petitioner, the petitioner had refused to take her back