JUDGMENT

Biswanath Rath, J.: Both the above appeals arise out of judgment and order dated 25.3.2012 passed by the learned Family Court, Sambalpur in Matrimonial Case No.19/44 of 2009-2012.

2. MATA 39 of 2013 is at the instance of the wife praying for enhancement of permanent alimony from Rs.12,00,000/- to Rs.25,00,000/- whereas MATA 64 of 2013 is at the instance of the husband praying for reduction in the quantum of permanent alimony. Since both the above appeals arose out of a common judgment and both sides rest their claim on quantum of permanent alimony, we heard the matters together.

3. The case of the husband in the Family Court was that the husband and the wife tied nuptial knot on 5th December, 2006 according to the Hindu Rites and customs. They stayed together as married couple for about two weeks in the house of the husband at Sambalpur. Thereafter they went to Mumbai where the husband was serving in a company. They led a very happy conjugal life for about two months but thereafter the wife found the husband to be of suspicious nature. She started suspecting the husband whenever the husband was talking with any lady staff on official matter. She started to behave rudely whenever any of his friends and spouses were visiting them. It was further alleged by the husband that whenever he was returning home in the evening being exhausted, the wife was insisting him for sex and if the husband was denying for the same at that point of time, then the wife was denying him sex at night time. She used to quarrel with the husband on petty matters and even going to the extent of threatening him to commit suicide in order to put him in trouble. They came back to Sambalpur on 20.01.2007 and thereafter she voluntarily went away to her parents’ house since 27.01.2007 whereafter there was no link with each other.

4. Pursuant to notice by the Family Court, wife appearing in the matter, filed a written statement. Her stand in the written statement was that the husband was dissatisfied with the dowry presented during her marriage and was insisting her to bring cash of Rs.15 lakhs to purchase a flat at Mumbai. She was all along ill treated. Sometimes, she was forced to see phonographic blue films and for oral sex. On refusal by her, she was being assaulted. She admitted the fact that on coming back to Sambalpur on 20.01.2007 on the proposal by the husband to take her to U.S.A., they had sworn a joint affidavit on 20.01.2007 to obtain the passport. But as her father did not give cash dowry of Rs.15 lakhs and a Car, the husband did not take her to U.S.A., left her in her father’s house and refused to take her back. Her further plea in the written statement was that the husband used to frequently talk with a lady in odd hours of late night for long time and had even confessed before her that he wanted to marry her but his parents forced him to marry the present appellant. In July, 2010, wife had gone to Mumbai to the husband’s house to assert her right as a wife but the husband lodged a complaint against her at Tilk Nagar P.S., Mumbai and she was prevented from joining the husband. She has specifically denied the allegation of threatening to commit suicide. On the other hand, she took a stand that the husband has treated her with cruelty, deserted her and she claimed that the petition for divorce by the husband has been filed on false pretext. On the above ground, while claiming for rejection of the petition at the instance of the husband, she had filed a counter claim under Section 23A of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to dissolve the marriage by decree of divorce, on the ground of cruelty shown by the husband and deserting her for a period of more than two years prior to the date of filing of the petition for divorce and claimed for permanent alimony of Rs.25,00,000/-(rupees twenty five lakhs).

5. Upon completion of pleadings of the parties, Family Court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the petitioner has treated the husband with cruelty or