Alok Singh, J.

Both the appeals are filed against judgment dated 21.09.2011 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun whereby Suit No. 5 of 2009 titled as Dilip Kumar Vs. Mrs. Manju filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed. Decree for dissolution of marriage between the parties was passed. Counter claim filed by wife was partly allowed and permanent alimony of Rs. 5,00,000/- was awarded in favour of wife. Husband is aggrieved by the permanent alimony part while wife is aggrieved by the decree of divorce.

2. Both the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Brief facts of the present case are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 02.05.2001, as per Hindu rites and rituals. Marriage between the parties was arranged marriage. Dilip Kumar (husband) is a Government Servant and Smt. Manju (wife) is a post graduate and homemaker.

4. Case of the husband is that his wife is of skeptic nature. She always doubted on his character. She was very quarrelsome and arrogant. She has problem with her in-laws and she pressurized him to take separate house. In order to make harmony, he took her to Shimla and visited other nearby places.

She used to admonish him and she usually said that she is more qualified and she can earn more money than him. When family members of the husband tried to intervene between them, she insulted them. She said that she would not do household work and on 26.07.2001, she left her matrimonial home. On 08.02.2002, a son was born out of the wedlock. He paid all the bills of hospital. Baptism (Namakaran) function of child was organized in her parental house. After 3-4 months from the birth of his son, he asked his wife to return her matrimonial home but she refused to live with her in-laws. Accordingly, he applied for government accommodation. Initially, a small accommodation was allotted to him, but she refused to live therein, therefore, he again requested the Authorities for bigger accommodation and again on 23.12.2003, a bigger accommodation was allotted to him then they started living in that government accommodation. In this accommodation, her parents and relatives used to visit her frequently and there was great interference of his in-laws in this house and again she left his company and started living with her parent. He issued a notice through his Advocate to her for living together but she in turn filed an FIR under Section 498A, 323, 506 IPC and of the Dowry Prohibition Act, a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C, a case under 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Per contra, wife denied all the allegations.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge framed following four issues:

“i. Whether husband meted out with cruelty, as stated in different paragraphs of the plaint, at the hands of wife.

ii. Whether plaint is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as stated in paragraph 56 of the counter claim. iii. Whether wife and Master Gaurav are entitled for one time compensation towards maintenance and education of Rs. 15,00,000/- or Rs. 12,000/- per month.

iv. Whether husband is entitled for the relief sought.”

6. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for the wife has submitted that husband never paid any penny towards the delivery charges of boy. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the medical bills submitted by the wife. He has further submitted that wife was living in her parental house on the advice of her husband.

7. Wife has categorically stated that her husband has not taken proper care of her. Even when she was pregnant, he has not taken to her hospital regular check ups. She has not left her matrimonial house out of her own will but her husband took her to her parental home and asked to remain there until he arranged another accommodation. When her parents pressurized him, then he applied for government accommodation and took her to the government accommodation. In the Government accommodation, her hus