JUDGMENT

1. Appellant-Husband has filed F.A. No. 1273/2014 under section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree dated 16.9.2014 whereby the Family Court, Ratlam has dismissed a petition filed under section 13(1)(1-a) (1-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Appellant-Husband has filed F.A. No. 352/2020 under section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree dated 8.1.2020 whereby the Family Court, Ratlam has allowed a petition filed by the respondent /wife under section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The common facts of both appeals are as under:

1. The marriage of the appellant/husband and respondent/wife was solemnized at Mandsaur under the Hindu customs and rituals on 28.4.1990. According to the appellant/husband, after one year of the marriage, the respondent/wife left his house on 31.5.1991 thereafter he made various efforts to bring her back but she did not return to his house. The appellant filed a First application for dissolution of marriage before the Civil Court on 23.6.1992 which was registered as HMA No. 58-A/1992. Simultaneously, the respondent/wife has also filed an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA No. 45-A/1992) for Restitution of Conjugal Rights on 1.5.1992. On 22.9.1993, the appellant/husband withdrew his application filed for dissolution of marriage (HMA No.58-A/1992).

2. The appellant/husband filed a second application for dissolution of marriage which was registered as case No.28-A/1993. Both the cases i.e. 45-A/1992 and 28-A/1993 were decided by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 5.4.1995. The second application filed by the appellant/husband for dissolution of marriage was dismissed and the application filed under section 9 for Restitution of Conjugal Right Act filed by the wife was allowed, against which no appeal was filed till date.

3. On 3.7.1996 the appellant/husband filed a third application for dissolution of marriage which was registered as HMA No. 89- A/1998. First Additional District Judge, Ratlam granted the decree of dissolution of marriage vide judgment and decree dated 2.4.1998 with the permanent alimony at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per month.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree on 17.4.1998 the respondent/wife filed F.A. No.166/1998 before the High Court. It is important to clarify that the appellant/husband did not file any appeal or cross-appeal against the decree of permanent alimony in favour of the respondent. Vide judgment dated 17.3.2005, the High Court has set aside the judgment and decree dated 2.4.1998 and did not interfere with the order of permanent alimony.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.3.2005 the appellant/husband approached the apex Court by way of SLP (Civil No.14672/2005) which came to be dismissed vide order dated 3.4.2006.

6. On 10.11.2010, respondent/wife filed an application under section 25(2) of HMA seeking enhancement of the amount of permanent alimony and vide order dated 10.11.2010 the learned Court has enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 1,200/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month.

7. On 4.5.2010, the appellant/husband again filed another application ( Fourth )for dissolution of marriage which was registered as HMA No. 39-A/2014. The respondent/wife filed an execution application of a decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights on 3.8.2013. Vide order dated 16.9.2014, the learned Family Court dismissed the fourth application of dissolution of marriage against which this present appeal [F.A. No.1273/2014 ] is filed.

8. The respondent/wife has preferred a second application for enhancement of maintenance and which was registered as Miscellaneous Civil Case No.13/2015. Vide order dated 14.5.2019, the executing Court has passed an order of payment of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month for disobedience of the decree of Restitution of Conjugal Right passed in HMA No.45-A/1992 on 5.4.1995 which the appellant is paying regularly.

9. The Principal Judge of Family Court vide order dated