JUDGMENT

Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2011 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in Civil Proceeding No. 11/2011/Mat-340/2007 granting dissolution of marriage with a decree of divorce and payment of permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- including Rs.4,00,000/- towards properties retained to the respondent-wife within two months, failing which the same shall be recovered by putting the decree into execution and assessed the cost at Rs.10,000/- which the appellant-husband shall pay to the respondent-wife.

2. The admitted fact is that appellant-husband and respondent-wife were married on 04.02.2005 at Bhubaneswar according to Hindu rites and customs. They lived together for a few weeks after their marriage. They have no issue. The appellant-husband flew back to his place of service in United Kingdom and the respondent-wife returned to her parent’s house. On the allegation of dowry demand and cruelty against her husband-appellant and her in-laws, the respondent-wife lodged an F.I.R. in Mahila Police Station, Bhubaneswar on 15.2.2008, which was registered as Mahila P.S.Case No. 30 of 2008 (Ext.1). The appellant-husband filed Civil Proceeding No.11 of 2011 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar under Section 13(i)(i-B) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by granting a decree of divorce.

3. In the Civil Proceeding attempts were made by the court for conciliation. Though the respondent-wife was present, the appellant-husband remained absent. However, the respondent-wife filed a counter claim also for dissolution of marriage and return of her articles and for permanent alimony. Learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar heard both the civil proceeding filed by the appellant-husband and the counter claim filed by the respondent-wife analogously and disposed of both the proceedings by judgment dated 17.3.2011.

4. In order to substantiate the case, the appellant-husband could not examine any witness, whereas the respondent-wife examined herself as R.W.1 and one Sachidananda Ratha as R.W.2. Further, no documents was filed by the appellant-husband, whereas the respondent-wife relied upon Exts.1 to 3 in support of her case.

5. The appellant-husband in his application has stated that during the period of joint living, the respondent-wife showed suicidal tendency and she was irritating and insulting him and his old parents before the outsiders and the respondent-wife allowed strangers to come to the matrimonial house and when the same was refused, she got annoyed. On two occasions, i.e. on 10.2.2005 and 25.2.2005, the respondent-wife left the matrimonial house and remained absent and took the plea of having visited her father. More so, she was not co-operating with the appellant-husband for cohabitation and showing violent conduct. Under such situation, the petitioner-husband could not live and lost hope to live together with the respondent-wife and prayed for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

6. In the counter claim filed by the respondent-wife, she denied the allegations stating that the same are false and fabricated. The respondent-wife stated that her husband and in-laws were subjecting her to cruelty for more dowry and deserted her. Even she wanted to establish relationship with her husband even after he flew back to his place of work, but she could not contact him in the address given to her as the same was subsequently found to be fake. Therefore, she claimed for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce and also claimed for return of articles and sought for permanent alimony.

7. On the basis of the materials available on record, learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar formulated a question for determination, i.e. “who of the spouses treated the other with cruelty and deserted and in case the marriage is dissolved what should be the quantum of permanent alimony and how the properties of the one shoul