The main legal point established in the judgment is the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and the process for dissolution of marriage on mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

The unsuccessful husband-appellant has filed this appeal assailing the judgment dated 31.8.2012 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Sambalpur in Matrimonial Case No. 13/36 of 2008-2012 dismissing the application filed by him under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Marriage between the parties to this appeal was solemnized on 5.7.2000 at Brahmapura Temple in the district of Sambalpur as per the Hindu customs and rites. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a male child on 28.3.2001. The appellant was earning his livelihood as Purohit (Priest). Due to unnecessary interference of his in-laws, the respondent (for short ‘the wife’) was quarreling with the appellant (for short ‘the husband) and her in-laws frequently. She used to leave her matrimonial home without any intimation either to the husband or to the in-laws to visit her parental house at Jharsuguda. In order to avoid disturbance in the family, both husband and wife started living in a rented house at Bhatra in the district of Sambalpur, but to the utter dismay of the husband, there was no improvement in the behaviour of the wife. Situation became worse, when she lodged a written report against her husband at Mahilla Police Station, Sambalpur on 25.3.2006 making false and frivolous allegations. However, the difference between the couple was compromised at the Police Station and she gave an undertaking to behave properly at the matrimonial home and accommodate with her husband. However, on 2.5.2006, when the husband was absent at home, she left matrimonial home with her minor son to her parental house without intimating the husband. The husband tried his best to conciliate the matter and resume their matrimonial life. When the husband had gone to his in-laws’ house to bring his wife back, he was manhandled by his in-laws. Hence, finding no hope to lead a conjugal life, the husband filed the aforesaid matrimonial case.

3. The respondent on appearance filed her show cause refuting the assertions and averments made in the petition under Section 13 of the Act. She alleged that the husband was picking up quarrel with her on trivial issues and was also in the habit of quarrelling in the society. She had lodged an F.I.R. before Mahilla Police Station, Sambalpur as she was mercilessly assaulted by her husband for no fault. However, it was compromised and they stayed together. Subsequently, her husband drove her out from the rented house with her son for which they have taken shelter in her parental home at Jharsuguda. She also contended in her show cause that on 11.6.2008, due to intervention of the relatives of both families, there was amicable settlement in the meeting held on 11.6.2008 at Barhampura Mandap, Sambalpur. Pursuant to the said compromise, both of them with their minor son started living at Bhatra in a rented house. But, on 6.8.2008, her husband left her at Railway Station at Sambalpur and on the next day, she found her son at Anath Ashram (orphanage) at Hirakud. She never deserted her matrimonial home voluntarily, as alleged. She was virtually driven out from her matrimonial home with minor son. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the matrimonial case.

4. On assessment of the pleadings, materials available on record and considering the submission made, learned Judge, Family Court, Sambalpur vide order dated 31.8.2012 dismissed the petition under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Act (Matrimonial Case No. 13/36 of 2008-2012) and directed the husband to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 2000/-to the respondent from the date of the said order. Hence, this appeal has been filed.

5. During pendency of the matrimonial appeal, this Court made consistent attempt and endeavour to re-unite the couple and bring an amicable settlement to the matrimonial discord between the parties. In course of hearing on 25.2.2016, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the wife is not agreeable to stay with her