----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of hearing and Judgment: 3 rd April, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARINDAM SINHA, J. 1 . The appeal has been preferred by appellant-wife being aggrieved by judgment dated 3rd May, 2016 of the Family Court dissolving the marriage at instance of the husband, carrying consequential directions regarding alimony and maintenance for her and her minor son. Mr. Pradhan, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-wife and Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for respondent-

Page 2 of 10 husband, who has also filed cross objection challenging the directions for alimony.

2. Order sheet reveals appellant-wife before us wanted reconciliation, at least for well being of the child. She wanted and still wants to go back and live with her husband. Here it would be appropriate to reproduce below paragraphs-1 to 3 from our order dated 4th March, 2024.

“1. Mr. Pradhan, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-wife and submits, his client is in Court. He reiterates, she wants to reconcile in wanting to go back, with the son, to her husband and stay with him.

2. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent husband and submits, his client is in Court. We asked respondent husband to step forward and on query from Court regarding his wife being present and having expressed her desire to reconcile, he with folded hands declined.

3. The parties are excused from further appearance.” So the appeal has been called on for hearing.

3. Mr. Pradhan submits, there was no act of cruelty by his client. Impugned judgment is erroneous in finding otherwise. He reiterates, his client wants reconciliation and the son, she is Page 3 of 10 confident, will cause it. His client is ready to live with her husband and she wants to put everything behind her and together move forward.

4. Mr. Mishra submits, the Family Court correctly appreciated the facts. It was an arranged marriage. There was no demand for dowry. She had no regard, neither for his client nor members of his family. She picked up quarrel with his client’s mother. There were abuse hurled at his client and his mother. Appellant-wife was adamant. All this amounted to cruelty and was found so in impugned judgment. Appellant-wife having married into a good family, was career oriented. She put her career first to desert him.

5. Appellant-wife upon having meted out cruelty and deserted his client, she having been gainfully employed, directions regarding monthly alimony and provision for residential accommodation were erroneously made. His client is unemployed and not in a position to comply with the directions. Hence, cross objection has been filed.

6. We have perused impugned judgment and the oral evidence adduced. We have also seen exhibit-A series being electronic mail conversation between the parties. The husband’s contention of his wife being adamant and schizophrenic had been alleged in the Page 4 of 10 petition. There was no mention nor reliance therein upon the electronic mail conversation between the parties. The written statement and cross examination of the husband were accordingly confined to case made out by the husband.

7. Father of respondent-husband was second witness for him. The witness referred to an incident of quarrel between his wife and daughter-in-law, when appellant-wife had said she wanted early divorce. In his cross-examination several additional facts were drawn from him, including mutual understanding between the parties that after marriage his daughter-in-law would be allowed to continue with her studies. Party witness no.3 of respondent-husband said he is a neighbor. Paragraph-4 from his evidence in chief by affidavit is reproduced below.

“4. That, so far my knowledge is concerned, wife of