IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Divorce – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage may not be a ground for dissolution of marriage, under Hindu Marriage Act, but it is a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(1a) of H.M. Act.
(2) Permanent Alimony – Court does not become functus officio with passing of decree of divorce and continues to have jurisdiction to award alimony even thereafter

JUDGMENT (CAV)

Heard the parties.

2. Both the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment.

3. The appellant-wife (Sunila Devi) has come up in these appeals against the judgment dated 27.07.2013 and decree dated 17.08.2013 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtas at Sasaram wherein Matrimonial Case No. 45 of 2003 filed by the appellant-wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights was rejected and Case No. 47 of 2003 filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage was allowed and the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was dissolved by a decree of divorce.

4. Succinctly, the marriage of appellant-Sunila Devi was solemnized with respondent-Pankaj Kumar on 9.5.1997 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was duly consummated; however, no child was born out of the wedlock.

5. The pleaded case of respondent-husband in his petition filed before learned Family Court is that the marriage of the respondent-husband with the appellant-wife was solemnized on 09.05.1997. The appellant was a literate lady and the only child of her parents. After marriage, the appellant went to her Sasural and started living with her husband (respondent). The appellant was a quarrelsome lady and soon after marriage, her behaviour with her husband and other in-laws family members was very rude. She frequently used to abuse the respondent and other family members. After marriage, the appellant stayed only 10 days and thereafter went to her parents house. The appellant went to complete her study at Banaras Hindu University without consent of the respondent. The appellant came to her matrimonial house in February, 1999 and after staying for about one month, she again went to her parents house. The appellant again came to her matrimonial in the year 2001 and after staying for about 15 days she left her matrimonial house and went to her parents house. The behaviour of the appellant with the respondent and other inlaws family members during her stay at her matrimonial house was not good and she used to abuse and quarrel with them without any rhyme and reason. She always used to threaten to commit suicide or implicate them in false cases and this was the reason, the respondent has filed informatory petition before the concerned police station and father-in-law of the appellant has filed Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 548/2002, 123/2003, 215/2003 against the appellant. Ultimately, the appellant has filed a false and concocted case bearing Dehri P.S. Case No. 163 of 2003 against the respondent and other in-laws family members under Sections 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code in which case, the respondent, his parents and unmarried sister had to go to jail. The respondent has challenged the order of conviction passed in connection with Dehri P.S. Case No. 163 of 2003 before learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Cr. Appeal No. 29 of 2013 which was allowed in favour of the respondent and the respondent and his family members were acquitted from all the charges levelled against them vide order dated 30.07.2018. The matrimonial relation between the appellant and respondent has already irretrievably broken down and there is no hope of restoration of their conjugal life. Hence, the respondent has filed Matrimonial Case No. 47 of 2003 for dissolution of marriage with the appellant.

6. The appellant-wife has appeared in pursuance to the notice issued to her and filed her written statement. In her written statement, she has denied all the allegations made against her. She has stated that the matrimonial case is not maintainable either on fact or law and the respondent has got no cause of action to file this case. The respondenthusband has no interest to continue conjugal relationship with the appellant. Soon after marriage, the appellant-wife was tortured for non-fulfillment of dowry demand. The