Divorce is granted based on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and permanent alimony is awarded factoring in the financial capacities of the parties.

JUDGMENT :

S. B. PD. SINGH, J.

Heard the parties.

2. The appellant-husband (Alok Kumar) has come up in this appeal against judgment and decree dated 11.09.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur in Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 211 of 2013 whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 (in short 'the 1955 Act') seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, has been dismissed.

3. Succinctly, the marriage of appellant- Alok Kumar was solemnized with respondent-Anupma Singh on 2^nd December 2010 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was solemnized and performed at Lichhavi Hotel, Imlichatti, Muzaffarpur. The marriage was duly consummated; however, no child was born from the wedlock.

4. The pleaded case of appellant-husband in his petition filed under Section 13 (1)(i-a) of the 1955 Act was that appellant was employed in Merchant Navy. The marriage with the appellant was arranged one. The case of the appellant, in short is that appellant got married with respondent Anupma Singh on 02.12.2010 according to Hindu rites and rituals. The marriage was solemnized and performed at Lichhavi Hotel, Imlichatti, Muzaffarpur. It is further alleged that after the marriage, respondent came to her Sasural on 03.12.2010 where she was warmly welcomed by the appellant’s parents and relatives and she was offered valuable goods including cash and gold ornaments. The behavior of the respondent since the date of the marriage with the appellant and other in-laws was bad and the appellant anyhow continued to live with the respondent for 15 days. It is further alleged that respondent started pressurizing the appellant to go to her paternal hose and she stopped taking food and sometimes she abused the appellant and his family members. Lastly, on 28.01.2011, the respondent went to her Maike along with her brother taking all her articles without any information. By this act of the respondent, appellant felt humiliation and he also made complaint to his in-laws but the family members of the respondent did not respond. It is further alleged that on 30.01.2011, the appellant visited to the parental house of the respondent and requested her to join him at his house but she refused then appellant came back to his house and went to his place of posting on 31.01.2011. It is further alleged that the father of the appellant regularly visited to the paternal house of the respondent about her well being but respondent did not behave properly with the father of the appellant and respondent was not ready to come back to her Sasural, rather she remained abusive with the appellant and other family members. It is alleged that when the appellant returned from his service to his house on leave, at that time also, the respondent was in her parental house and she did not join the appellant in her matrimonial house and on request by the appellant to his in-laws to send respondent to her matrimonial house, the same was refused and told that she would never back to her Sasural. It is further alleged that the behavior of the respondent with the appellant was never good after 28.01.2011 and she kept the appellant away from herself and whenever the appellant tried to pursue her, she used to abuse the appellant and threatened that if he insisted further to go to her Sasural, she would commit suicide and get him and his family members in jail. The respon