The court considered the practical impossibility of the parties living together and granted a conditional decree of divorce, prioritizing the welfare of the parties and the maintenance of the wife and child.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of the same judgment and order dated 30-3-2001 passed by the Principal judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar. By the impugned order, the suit for divorce under s. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by the husband ghanshyam Gupta has been allowed on the condition that the plaintiff Ghanshyam gupta pays a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- for. the maintenance of his wife and daughter. The first Appeal No. 307 of 2001 has been filed by the wife Poonam Gupta praying for setting aside the judgment and order dated 30-3-2001 and to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff, whereas the other First Appeal No. 350 of 2001 has been filed by the husband ghanshyam Gupta praying for setting aside that part of the judgment and order whereby it directs the appellant Ghanshyam Gupta to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as maintenance allowance.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of this case are that the plaintiff Ghanshyam Gupta got married to the opposite party Poonam Gupta on 24-11-1993. Out of the wedlock, a daughter was born on 2-12-1994. On the allegations of cruelty by the wife, on 22-5-1995, the plaintiff filed a petition under S. 13 of the Hindu marriage Act praying for a decree of divorce. According to the allegations in the plaint, after the marriage, the plaintiff had taken full care of the opposite party and had also taken her to various places for holiday. Later when they returned home it was revealed that the opposite party was not prepared to do any domestic work and used to tell the plaintiff and his family members that all such domestic work was done by servants at her mothers place and thus expressed her inability to do the same. It was also alleged that she refused to meet his relatives and used to misbehave with the family members. Further, it was alleged that even though the marriage of plaintiffs sister was fixed for 5-11 -1994, the opposite party went away to her mothers place on 15-10-1994 and did not turn up to attend the marriage. Due to these actions of the opposite party, it was alleged by the plaintiff that he had to face humiliation amongst his relatives, friends and others. Contending that all these acts of misbehaviour amounted to cruelty by the wife, the plaintiff prayed for a decree of divorce.

( 3 ) AN ex parte decree of divorce was passed on 5-5-1997. On coming to know-of him said ex parte decree, the opposite party filed an appeal challenging the said order, which was registered as First Appeal No. 237 of 2000. The Division Bench hearing that appeal had made efforts for reconciliation and in fulfilment of such objective, the parties were required to appear before the bench. Although the opposite party-wife, had made a statement that she would like to reside with her husband, but the plaintiff husband had expressed his inability to live with the opposite party. He even stated that after the passing of the ex parte decree, he had performed another marriage with one sunita Gupta through whom they had a son. After arriving at a conclusion that the reconciliation was not possible, the Bench heard the matter on merits and allowed the appeal with a direction to the Principal judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar to dispose of the suit expeditiously. In the said judgment dated 14-7-2000, the Division bench also observed that during the process of reconciliation, the plaintiff husband had made an offer to settle the entire dispute with the opposite party-wife, for which he was prepared to pay a sum of rupees five lakhs. However, since the same was not. acceptable to the opposite party-wife, no settlement could be arrived at even on such terms.

( 4 ) AFTER remand of the case, the opposite party-wife filed her written statement admitting the fact of the marriage on 24-11-1993. However, she denied the allegations that she was not performing her duties at her matrimonial home at Kanpur. On the contrary she stated that she was discharging her part of matrimonial obligations and was rende