IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional – A dead marriage must be given a decent quietus.
(2) A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, spells cruelty to both parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating other with cruelty.

JUDGMENT (CAV)

Alok Kumar Pandey, J.—The present miscellaneous appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 19.01.2018 and decree dated 25.01.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga in Matrimonial Case No. 10 of 2009 whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga passed the decree of judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the divorce petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and directed for payment of additional maintenance allowance of Rs. 5,000/- per month over and above the maintenance allowance of Rs. 25,000/- per month already being paid by the appellant-husband to the respondent wife.

2. Briefly stated the fact of the appellant’s case is that the appellant and respondent solemnized the marriage on 06.05.2001 in Mohalla-Mishratola, Town P.S., District-Darbhanga as per Hindu rites and customs. It is further averred that after marriage both parties came to Darbhanga, residence of the appellant from where on 13.05.2001 both parties went to Chandigarh where the appellant was working as Assistant Manager, NABARD. It is further averred that respondent stayed with the appellant at Chandigarh for about three months and returned to her father’s house for performing Madhushrawani festival but when respondent came back in the month of September 2001, the appellant noticed radical change in the attitude of the respondent. The respondent started behaving indecently with appellant’s cousin brother and started disliking to appellant’s colleague. It is further stated by the appellant that male child was born on 24.04.2002 out of the wedlock and after birth of male child respondent went to the residence of her parents. It is further stated that the appellant came to Chandigarh on 10.05.2002 and respondent came to the residence of the appellant but she started behaving abnormally with the appellant’s mother and the respondent made allegation that her mother-in-law would kill her son and remained awaking whole night keeping the volume of television very high, expressing disrespect to the elders. It is further averred that respondent did not pay attention to her child and the situation has become bad to worse. It is further averred that all the reasonable steps have been taken by the appellant to pacify the matter, but same went in vain. It is further stated that respondent was taken to Dr. P.K. Singh (mental doctor) when she gave bite in the stomach of Sri Rishi Kumar Rai (Principal, Nagendra Jha Mahila College, Darbhanga), the youngest uncle of the appellant. It is further averred by the appellant that the respondent all of a sudden started running on open road. Several doctors have been consulted but condition of the respondent did not improve rather the same started deteriorating day by day. It has also been averred in the petition that respondent wanted to cut off all the relations with the family of her in-laws and started saying witch (DAIN) to her mother-in-law. The appellant has taken all precaution for better treatment of respondent and he took the respondent to Nehru Hospital, Chandigarh as the respondent stopped taking medicine prescribed by the doctor at NIMHANS. Despite being costly treatment rendered to the respondent, the respondent could not be recovered. It is also asserted by the appellant that the doctor reached at the conclusion that respondent is a chronic patient of Schizophrenia and has dual personality and cannot have an affectionate relationship. The appellant has taken proper care, nourishment and treatment to the respondent but same went in vain and appellant found himself alone. Even one male child is not being imparted with better education and his career is being spoiled. It is further averred in the petition that the sole son is being poisoned against the appellant as he has been taught to hate his father as the respondent and her family members are not ready to give the son (Harshit Kumar) in the custody of the app