JUDGMENT : Savitri Ratho, J. Before proceeding to deliver the judgment in this case, we deem it apposite to quote an observation of the Supreme Court in the case of N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane reported in (1975) 2 SC 326 : which very aptly describes the situation which a Court deciding a matrimonial dispute has to often deal with, which is as follows : “The court has to deal, not with an ideal husband and an ideal wife (assuming any such exist) but with the particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a near-ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to a matrimonial court for, even if they may not be able to drown their differences, their ideal attitudes may help them overlook or gloss over mutual faults and failures.” 2. This appeal has been filed by the husband under Section – 19 of the Family Courts Act, challenging the judgment dated 05.08.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur in Civil Proceeding No.247/2017 filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act , dismissing his prayer to dissolve his marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce. 3. As the parties have a minor daughter, before hearing the matter on merit, we had interacted with the parties on 28.02.2023 with the hope that they would agree for a reconciliation. Before that, on 07.09.2022, there had been another interaction by this Court. But the efforts for reconciliation were unsuccessful, for which the appeal was finally heard the on merit on 05.04.2023. CASE OF APPELLANT HUSBAND 4. The marriage of the parties had been solemnized on 27.06.2012 at Shanti Mandap Jaipur Town according to Hindu convention and rites. Both stayed together as husband and wife at village Kantipur for a period of six months. Dissension arose due to allegations raised by the respondent about extra marital affairs of the appellant with another lady. She also expressed her inability to adjust herself with his family members and on 25.01.2013 she insisted that the appellant live with her separately in Jajpur Town. When he did not agree, she became furious and abused him saying ‘rustic, bastard’ etc. She also expressed her inability to adjust herself with his family members and on 25.01.2013 she insisted that the appellant live with her separately in Jajpur Town. When he did not agree, she became furious and abused him saying ‘rustic, bastard’ etc. On 26.01.2013, the appellant called his father in law to his house and informed him about her behaviour and her father cautioned the respondent and convinced her to behave properly with the appellant and his family members. The respondent used to avoid performing the routine household work and would leave her bed at 9.30 A.M. and misbehaved in case any family member advised her about anything. On 15.08.2013 at about 10.30 A.M. the appellant requested the respondent to help his ailing mother with the cooking. But she became furious and said that she is not his maid servant and went inside the bed room along with her minor daughter, locked the door and slept till 3.00 P.M. On repeated calls of the appellant, she got enraged and opened the door and when asked by the appellant the reason for doing so, assaulted him with a broom. A village meeting was convened that night to resolve the dispute. The village gentry convinced her to behave properly for a happy conjugal life. But she disclosed openly that the appellant is not her choice and her attitude did not change. On 25.08.2013 at about 10.30 A.M., with her bag and baggage, without informing the appellant or his family members, she left for the house of her parents. When the appellant tried to question her, she spat on his face and threatened to kill by administering poison in his food, if he detained her. She left that day. On the very next day, the appellant had been to the parental house of the respondent, to bring her back, but in presence of her parents, she threatened to assault him showing her slipper and denied to return to his house. In spite of his several attempts over the past three years, she did not return. On 28.09.2017 at about 4.30 P.M., when the appellant had gone to her parental house to bring her and their daughter back, she refused to come and insulted him by calling him a ‘street dog’. Hence he filed the proceeding with a prayer for dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce. CASE OF RESPONDENT WIFE 5. On 28.09.2017 at about 4.30 P.M., when the appellant had gone to her parental house to bring her and their daughter back, she refused to come and insulted him by calling him a ‘street dog’. Hence he filed the proceeding with a prayer for dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce. CASE OF RESPONDENT WIFE 5. The respondent-wife entered appearance and filed a written statement denying almost all the allegations made by the appellant. She admitted the marriage and submitted that at the time of marriage her father fulfilled the demand of Rs.2,50,000/-, gold and silver ornaments along with house hold articles. Her husband hailed from a prestigious family. His father was serving as a Professor at Ravenshaw College and his brothers in various esteemed posts. They were living jointly as well as in their serving / practicing places. Her husband was serving as an Assistant Professor in Ajaya Binay Institute of Technology, C.D.A. Cuttack (in short “ABIT”). He had good income and his family has valuable property in different places including their native village. The parties have a daughter, who was reading in Apex English Medium School, Jajpur Town with the aid of her father as the appellant was not providing a single paise. When she was staying at her in laws house at Cuttack, her married sister in law namely Jalli used to torture her in presence of the appellant and his parents supported her. Instead of the appellant, this sister used to accompany the respondent for treatment and proper medicine was not provided to her. In spite of all such sufferings she performed her duties as a good daughter-in-law and was doing all house hold work, but the appellant did not spend time with her as husband and did not take care of their daughter. Ultimately, the appellant brought her along with their minor daughter to her parental house and left them there. Thereafter the appellant never attempted to bring them back to his house although she was ready and willing to reside with him for proper care of their minor child. The appellant did not approach her on 28.09.2017 at about 4.30 P.M. as claimed in his petition. Thereafter the appellant never attempted to bring them back to his house although she was ready and willing to reside with him for proper care of their minor child. The appellant did not approach her on 28.09.2017 at about 4.30 P.M. as claimed in his petition. She was always ready and willing to reside with him to take care of her child and she was not informed about death of her father in law by the appellant but she had tried to discuss the matter by messaging him but he did not allow her to do so. During counseling, she had consented to live with him. She had no personal income of her own, whereas the appellant has good income and his family had valuable properties in different places and in his native village. She had prayed for dismissal of the case of the husband. Alternatively, she prayed that in case it was not possible for them to live together, she should be provided with permanent alimony as well as expenses for the education and marriage of their minor daughter. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned Judge, Family Court,Jajpur for deciding the case: i) Whether the respondent-wife after marriage had treated the petitioner with cruelty? ii) Whether the respondent-wife had deserted the petitioner for a period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition without reasonable cause? iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce against the respondent? iv) Whether the Respondent-wife is entitled to get permanent alimony and maintenance from the petitioner-husband and what would be the quantum there of ? WITNESSES 7. In support of his case, the appellant-husband examined himself as P.W.1, one Kailash Ch. Samal a co villager as P.W.2 and one Bikrama Keshari Samal another co-villager as P.W.3. Per contra, the respondent has examined herself as R.W.1 and her father Jairam Biswal as R.W.2 and exhibited a letter obtained from Ajaya Binaya Institute of Technology as Ext. A. IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT 8. The learned Judge Family Court, Jajpur found that the evidence adduced by the appellant did not reveal that the conduct of respondent- wife was either grave or so serious in nature so that the appellant could not reasonably be expected to live with her. A. IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT 8. The learned Judge Family Court, Jajpur found that the evidence adduced by the appellant did not reveal that the conduct of respondent- wife was either grave or so serious in nature so that the appellant could not reasonably be expected to live with her. He found that the appellant was not able to prove the ground of cruelty or desertion by the respondent. He also found that there was no evidence to prove that the wife had made allegation of extra marital relations of the appellant with another lady and that her behavior of avoiding to do household work was the “normal wear and tear of marital life”. Calling her husband a bastard and saying that he was not her choice would not constitute cruelty, as trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses which happen in day to day may not amount to cruelty. The learned family Judge, held that the evidence of the husband did not reveal that conduct of the wife was so grave that he could not be reasonably expected to live with her and the onus of proving the fact of separation (factum deserendi) as well as the intention of desertion (animus deserendi) was on him and further held the wife had no intention to desert the husband without any reasonable cause or against his will. It finally held that that breakdown of marriage could not be a ground to grant divorce. Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh : (2007) 1 SCC 511 and Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli : AIR 2006 SC 1675 , the learned Judge , held that the appellant had not been able to bring home the ground of cruelty or desertion and dismissed the proceeding. SUBMISSIONS 9. Mr. R.C. Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant-husband submits that the impugned judgment is liable for interference as the learned court below has not appreciated the evidence of the P.Ws who have made out a case of cruelty and desertion by the respondent-wife. The behaviour of the respondent was unruly. She used to abuse the appellant using slang and derogatory words without any provocation and has also threatened him with assault. She has misbehaved with his parents . This conduct constitutes mental cruelty. The behaviour of the respondent was unruly. She used to abuse the appellant using slang and derogatory words without any provocation and has also threatened him with assault. She has misbehaved with his parents . This conduct constitutes mental cruelty. He further submitted that the respondent wife left the matrimonial house with their daughter on March, 2012 and did not choose to come back inspite of the efforts of the appellant. As a result they have been staying apart since almost 10 years and chances of reunion being bleak and their marriage had broken down irretrievably for which it should be dissolved by a decree of divorce, so that they can start their lives afresh. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on following decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court : 1. Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate (2003) 6 SCC 334 : 2003 (3) Supreme 416 (Paragraphs 6 and \7) 2. Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena alias Mota : AIR 1964 Supreme Court 40 3. Narendra v.K.Meena : (2016) 9 SCC 455 (Paragraphs 11 and 13) 4. Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli : (2006) 4 SCC 55 (Paragraphs 55,56,65,73,74,75) 5. Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy : (2005) 7 SCC 353 ( Paragraphs B, G of Page 843) 6. Usha Rani Pradhan v. Braja Kishore Pradhan : 2015 (Supp.II) OLR 1082 ( page 1088, 1089) 7. Harendra Nath Burman v. Suprova Burman : 1989 0 AIR (Cal) 120 (Paragraphs 17 and 18 ) 10. Mr. A.N. Pattanaik, learned counsel for the respondent-wife submits that there is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the court for which the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The husband left the respondent wife and their daughter in her parents house on 25.08.2013 and did not make any efforts to bring her back. She for the sake of their daughter was always willing to return to her matrimonial home, but the appellant filed the case for divorce making false allegations of cruelty and desertion. Even after filing of the case, during conciliation the wife wanted to join his company with their daughter but he did not agree. He has not been able to prove cruelty or desertion on the part of the respondent for which the proceeding was dismissed. Even after filing of the case, during conciliation the wife wanted to join his company with their daughter but he did not agree. He has not been able to prove cruelty or desertion on the part of the respondent for which the proceeding was dismissed. The learned counsel has also submitted that the respondent has no independent income and is dependent on her father and if a decree of divorce is passed for any reason, the appellant husband should be directed to pay permanent alimony so that the respondent wife and their child are able to lead a decent life and their daughter is able to pursue her studies in a reputed institution . The learned counsel has filed the following documents during hearing of the appeal – i) Copy of the certificate issued on 23 . 03 . 2022 by the Principal Apex English Medium School, Jajpur stating that the daughter of the parties is studying in Class III and has paid Rs 16,950/- towards annual school fees for the academic year 2021-22. ii) Relevant pages of the Diary for the year 2013 of Ajaya Binaya Institute of Technology which indicates that Ramesh Chandra Samal was working as Asst Professor and Head of the Department of Mathematics. CASE LAW 11. Before scrutinizing the evidence adduced by the parties for the purpose of determining if the impugned judgment warrants any interference, it would be apposite to refer to the decisions relied on by the counsels and some other decisions which would be relevant for deciding this Appeal. 11.1 In the case of Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate (supra), the husband had filed two appeals – challenging the order granting dissolution of marriage, by allowing the petition of the respondent-wife and the order dismissing the petition filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights and custody of their two daughters. The Supreme Court in paragraph 7 dealt with the question of “mental cruelty” and held as follows: “7. The question that requires to be answered first is as to whether the averments, accusations and character assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the written statement constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Act. The question that requires to be answered first is as to whether the averments, accusations and character assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the written statement constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Act. The position of law in this regard has come to be well settled and declared that leveling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra marital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed in the context of an educated Indian wife and judged by Indian conditions and standards would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the claim of the wife being allowed. That such allegations made in the written statement or suggested in the course of examination and by way of cross- examination satisfy the requirement of law has also come to be firmly laid down by this Court. On going through the relevant portions of such allegations, we find that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well as the High Court.We find that they are of such quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause mental pain, agony and suffering amounting to the reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law causing profound and lasting disruption and driving the wife to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it would be dangerous for her to live with a husband who was taunting her like that and rendered the maintenance of matrimonial home impossible.” 11.2 In the case of Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani (supra), the Bombay High Court had had reversed the decree for judicial separation granted by the trial judge in a proceeding filed by appellant husband under Section 10 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for a decree of judicial separation on the ground of desertion. The Bombay high Court had reversed the judgment and decree of the City Civil Court granting a decree of judicial separation. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court. Iyyangar J , speaking on behalf of the majority of the Five Judge Bench restored the decree of judicial separation holding as follows : “30. The Bombay high Court had reversed the judgment and decree of the City Civil Court granting a decree of judicial separation. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court. Iyyangar J , speaking on behalf of the majority of the Five Judge Bench restored the decree of judicial separation holding as follows : “30. Before proceeding to deal with the contents of the letter and the other points urged in relation to it, it might perhaps be useful to set out the legal position in the light of which the entire matter has to be considered. As stated by Scott. L. J., in Tickler v. Tickler [1943] 1 All E.R. 57,at p 59 (1), quoting the words of Lord Romer in an earlier decision : "The question whether a deserting spouse has a reasonable cause for trying to br ing the desertion to an end and the corresponding question whether desertion without cause has existed for the necessary period must always be a question of fact." The question for consideration in such cases is "Is the con duct of the deserted spouse such as to excuse the deserting spouse from making any attempt to put an end to the desertion or from attempting any reconciliation?" (Vide also Brewer v. Brewer [1961] 3 All E.R. 957 at p 964 ) . The basis of this rule rests on this, that such conduct on the part of the deserted spouse would legally operate as a consent to the existing separation and would have the effect of absolving the deserting spouse from any obligation to return to the matrimonial home or to make amends for her improper conduct, for the petitioner in a petition for judicial separation grounded on desertion by the other spouse has to prove that for the period of two years specified in s. 10(1) (a) of the Act the respondent has without cause been in desertion and that intention must be proved to exit throughout that period. If, therefore, during that period the respondent has just cause to remain apart he or she would not be in desertion and the petition for judicial separation would fail. 31. It would be seen that we have here the interaction of two distinct matters which have to coexist in order that desertion might come to an end. If, therefore, during that period the respondent has just cause to remain apart he or she would not be in desertion and the petition for judicial separation would fail. 31. It would be seen that we have here the interaction of two distinct matters which have to coexist in order that desertion might come to an end. In the first place, there must be conduct on the part of the deserted spouse which affords just and reasonable cause for the deserting spouse not to seek reconciliation and which absolves her from her continuing obligation to return to the matrimonial home. In this one has to have regard to the conduct of the deserted spouse. But there is one other matter which is also of equal importance, that is, that the conduct of the deserted spouse should have had such an. impact on the mind of the deserting spouse that in fact it causes her to continue to live apart and thus continue the desertion. But where, however, on the facts it is clear that the conduct of the deserted spouse has had no such effect on the mind of the deserting spouse there is no rule of law that desertion terminates by reason of the conduct of the deserted spouse. It appears to us that the principle that the conduct of the deserted spouse which is proved not to have caused the deserting spouse to continue the desertion does not put an end to the desertion appears to be self-evident and deducible from the legal concepts underlying the law as to desertion.” 11.3 In the case of Narendra v. K.Meena (supra), the appeal had been filed by the husband challenging the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka, setting aside the decree of divorce passed by the learned trial Court. In paragraphs-11 and 13 the Supreme Court held as follows: “11. The Respondent wife wanted the Appellant to get separated from his family. The evidence shows that the family was virtually maintained from the income of the Appellant husband. It is not a common practice or desirable culture for a Hindu son in India to get separated from the parents upon getting married at the instance of the wife, especially when the son is the only earning member in the family. The evidence shows that the family was virtually maintained from the income of the Appellant husband. It is not a common practice or desirable culture for a Hindu son in India to get separated from the parents upon getting married at the instance of the wife, especially when the son is the only earning member in the family. A son, brought up and given education by his parents, has a moral and legal obligation to take care and maintain the parents, when they become old and when they have either no income or have a meagre income. In India, generally people do not subscribe to the western thought, where, upon getting married or attaining majority, the son gets separated from the family. In normal circumstances, a wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after the marriage. She becomes integral to and forms part of the family of the husband and normally without any justifiable strong reason, she would never insist that her husband should get separated from the family and live only with her. In the instant case, upon appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that merely for monetary considerations, the Respondent wife wanted to get her husband separated from his family. The averment of the Respondent was to the effect that the income of the Appellant was also spent for maintaining his family. The said grievance of the Respondent is absolutely unjustified. A son maintaining his parents is absolutely normal in Indian culture and ethos. There is no other reason for which the Respondent wanted the Appellant to be separated from the family - the sole reason was to enjoy the income of the Appellant. Unfortunately, the High Court considered this to be a justifiable reason. In the opinion of the High Court, the wife had a legitimate expectation to see that the income of her husband is used for her and not for the family members of the Respondent husband. We do not see any reason to justify the said view of the High Court. As stated hereinabove, in a Hindu society, it is a pious obligation of the son to maintain the parents. We do not see any reason to justify the said view of the High Court. As stated hereinabove, in a Hindu society, it is a pious obligation of the son to maintain the parents. If a wife makes an attempt to deviate from the normal practice and normal custom of the society, she must have some justifiable reason for that and in this case, we do not find any justifiable reason, except monetary consideration of the Respondent wife. In our opinion, normally, no husband would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated from his old parents and other family members, who are also dependent upon his income. The persistent effort of the Respondent wife to constrain the Appellant to be separated from the family would be torturous for the husband and in our opinion, the trial Court was right when it came to the conclusion that this constitutes an act of ‘cruelty’.” “13. This Court, in the case of Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate , 2003 (6) SCC 334 has held as under:- “7. The question that requires to be answered first is as to whether the averments, accusations and character assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the written statement constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. The position of law in this regard has come to be well settled and declared that levelling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extramarital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed in the context of an educated Indian wife and judged by Indian conditions and standards would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the claim of the wife being allowed. That such allegations made in the written statement or suggested in the course of examination and by way of cross-examination satisfy the requirement of law has also come to be firmly laid down by this Court. On going through the relevant portions of such allegations, we find that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well as the High Court. On going through the relevant portions of such allegations, we find that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well as the High Court. We find that they are of such quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause mental pain, agony and suffering amounting to the reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law causing profound and lasting disruption and driving the wife to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it would be dangerous for her to live with a husband who was taunting her like that and rendered the maintenance of matrimonial home impossible.….” 11.4 In the case of Naveen Kohli (supra), the appellant – husband has challenged the judgment of Allahabad High Court where the appeal had been allowed and decree passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kanpur City seeking divorce of annulment of marriage filed by the husband was dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the order of the trial Court and that wisdom lies in accepting the pragmatic reality of life and take a decision which would ultimately be conducive in the interest of both the parties. It set aside the judgment of the High Court and directed that the marriage between the parties should be dissolved according to the provision of the Hindu Marriage Act and further directed that the appellant to pay Rs.25,00,000/- to the respondent towards permanent maintenance within eight weeks which included Rs.5,00,000/- lakhs deposited by the appellant before the trial Court. While doing so, the Supreme Court referring to the decision in the case of Chetan Dass v.Kamla Devi reported in (2001) 4 SCC 250 , Sandhya Rani v. Kalyanram Narayanan reported in (1994) Supp. 2 SCC 588, Chandrakala Menon v. Vipin Menon reported in (1993) 2 SCC 6 , Kanchan Devi v. Promod Kumar Mittal reported in (1996) 8 SCC 90 , Swati Verma v. Rajan Verma reported in (2004) 1 SCC 123 , Prakash Chand Sharma v. Vimlesh reported in 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 642, V.Bhagat v. D.Bhagat reported in (1994) 1 SCC 337 and A.Jaychandra v. Aneel Kumar reported in (2005) 2 SCC 22 , held as follows in pararagraphs-55,56, 65, 73, 74 and 75: “55. (4) SCC 642, V.Bhagat v. D.Bhagat reported in (1994) 1 SCC 337 and A.Jaychandra v. Aneel Kumar reported in (2005) 2 SCC 22 , held as follows in pararagraphs-55,56, 65, 73, 74 and 75: “55. In the case of Chandrakala Menon vs. Vipin Menon reported in (1993) 2 SCC 6 , the parties had been living separately for so many years. This Court came to the conclusion that there is no scope of settlement between them because, according to the observation of this Court, the marriage has irretrievably broken down and there is no chance of their coming together. This Court granted decree of divorce. 56. In the case of Kanchan Devi vs. Promod Kumar Mittal reported in (1996) 8 SCC 90 , the parties were living separately for more than 10 years and the Court came to the conclusion that the marriage between the parties had to be irretrievably broken down and there was no possibility of reconciliation and therefore the Court directed that the marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce.” “73. A law of divorce based mainly on fault is inadequate to deal with a broken marriage. Under the fault theory, guilt has to be proved; divorce courts are presented concrete instances of human behavior as bring the institution of marriage into disrepute. 74. We have been principally impressed by the consideration that once the marriage has broken down beyond repair, it would be unrealistic for the law not to take notice of that fact, and it would be harmful to society and injurious to the interests of the parties. Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be surmised that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction, though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to severe that tie the law in such cases do not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. 75. The marriage becomes a fiction, though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to severe that tie the law in such cases do not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. 75. Public interest demands not only that the married status should, as far as possible, as long as possible, and whenever possible, be maintained, but where a marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage, public interest lies in the recognition of that fact.” 11.5 In the case of Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy reported in (2005)7 SCC 353 , the Supreme Court after referring to many of its earlier decisions where cruelty or desertion could not be proved nor could the marriage be retrieved and the parties were residing separately since long held as follows: “The facts and circumstances in the above three cases disclose that reunion is impossible. Our case on hand is one such. It is not in dispute that the appellant and the respondent are living away for the last 14 years. It is also true that a good part of the lives of both the parties has been consumed in this litigation. As observed by this Court, the end is not in sight. The assertion of the wife through her learned counsel at the time of hearing appears to be impractical. It is also a matter of record that dislike for each other was burning hot. Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to say the following: Marriages are made in heaven. Both parties have crossed the point of no return. A workable solution is certainly not possible. Parties cannot at this stage reconcile themselves and live together forgetting their past as a bad dream. We, therefore, have no other option except to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and affirming the order of the Family Court granting decree for divorce.” 11.6 The Supreme Court in the case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.) (supra) has held : “She is fully aware that the marriage is long dead and over. It is her case that the petitioner is genetically insane. Despite all that, she says that she wants to live with the petitioner. It is her case that the petitioner is genetically insane. Despite all that, she says that she wants to live with the petitioner. The obvious conclusion is that she has resolved to live in agony only to make life a miserable hell for the petitioner as well. This type of callous attitude in the context of the facts of this case, leaves no manner of doubt in our mind that the respondent is bent upon treating the petitioner with mental cruelty. It is abundantly clear that the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably and there is no chance of their coming together, or living together again. Having regard to the peculiar features of this case, we are of the opinion that the marriage between the parties should be dissolved under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act and we do so accordingly.” 11.7 In the case of Usha Rani Pradhan (supra), the wife had challenged the impugned judgment allowing the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolving the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce subject to payment of alimony of monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the appellant-wife. The High Court referring to the decisions in the case of Adhyatma Bhattar Alwar v. Adhyatm Bhattar Sri Devi reported in AIR 2002 SC 88 and Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey reported in 2002 (1) Kerala Law Journal 193 held as follows: “Thus keeping in view the aforesaid settled position of law that there can be no desertion without animus deserendi and it implies not only factum of separation but also intention to separate permanently and to put an end to matrimonial relationship and cohabitation, on scanning of the materials on record, we found that the conduct of the appellant in leaving the company of her husband and their small children and living separately for so many years since 2007 for pursuing her so- called political ambition clearly indicates that she had deserted the respondent without reasonable cause and without his consent and against the wish of the respondent.” On the question of cruelty, this Court has held as follows: “The evidence on record further indicates that the appellant treated the respondent with cruelty. She had not only neglected to perform her matrimonial duties and obligations but also instituted one after another case against her husband. She had not only neglected to perform her matrimonial duties and obligations but also instituted one after another case against her husband. The manner in which she had conducted herself for so many years and harassed and humiliated her husband has caused reasonable apprehension in the mind of the respondent that it would be harmful and injurious on his part to live in the company of the appellant and that is the probable reason why the respondent is not interested to live in the company of the appellant.” 11.8 In the case of Harendra Nath Burman (supra), the wife had made allegation of extra marital relation of her husband with another woman- Sipra in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C and had repeated such allegation in her written statement in the divorce proceeding and in her cross examination had stated that she had seen both in a compromising situation at night and that she was assaulted when she protested and that she assaulted the woman- Sipra . But no such case was put to the petitioner-husband while he deposed in this case and she admitted that she had not told anybody about this . The High Court found the allegations to be unfounded and baseless and that it constituted mental cruelty of gravest character to warrant divorce. At paragraph 18 of its judgment , it held as follows : “ 18. As we cannot but note, scurrilous, vituperative and scandalous allegations have been freely made by both the spouses against each other and since we have found them to have been made by the parties without any justifiable foundation, we would have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and irreparably beyond all prospects of resuscitation or restoration. But as pointed out hereinbefore, however desirable it may be, irretrievable breakdown, by itself and without more, has not, as yet been made a ground of divorce and the Court must find out one or more of the grounds as specified in Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, unless the parties choose to proceed for divorce by mutual consent under Section 28 of the Act. Since we have found out such a ground, namely, cruelty by the wife-respondent, we would decree divorce and (borrowing from the Supreme Court decision in Saroj Rani (supra)), we would say that we do so without any "mental compunction", as we have also found the marriage to have been wrecked beyond repair.” 11.9 In the case of Smt.Sadhana Srivastava v. Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava reported in AIR 2006 Allahabad 7, the Allahabad High Court was deciding an appeal filed by the wife challenging the judgment and decree of the Family Court, which had allowed the suit has discussed the concept of cruelty and its effect on a matrimonial relationship , the effect of unfounded allegations of extra marital relations ship and the offer of the wife to stay with the husband . The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below : “10. The word 'Cruelty' has not been defined anywhere in the Act. The word appears to have been used in the Section in context of human behaviour in relation to or in respect of matrimonial obligations or duties. Cruelty can be termed as behaviour or conduct of one spouse which adversely affects the other. Thus broadly speaking 'cruelty' as a ground for the purpose of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) can be taken as a behaviour of one spouse towards the other which causes reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it is not safe to continue the matrimonial relationship. 11. Cruelly can be physical or mental or even intentional of unintentional. Physical cruelly is a question of fact and degree. It may consist of act of one of the spouse which may endanger the physical health, life and limbs of the other spouse or may give cause for apprehension of such injury. Where as the mental cruelty is a conduct of a spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life in the mind of the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling of one of the spouse due to behaviour or behavioural pattern by the other. Where as the mental cruelty is a conduct of a spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life in the mind of the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling of one of the spouse due to behaviour or behavioural pattern by the other. Mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence, It is a matter of inference to be drawn from facts and circumstances of the case, A feeling of anguish and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other can be appreciated on the assessment of facts and circumstances in which the two of them have been living. The inference has to be drawn from overall facts and circumstances considered cumulatively.” “17. What has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of wife will stand true and with equal force in the case of a husband as well. The allegation of having illicit relationship and extra marital affair made by the appellant wife against the respondent husband in her written statement, in our view, cannot but constitute mental cruelty of such a nature that respondent husband cannot be reasonably asked to live with the wife. Thus we see no illegality in the finding recorded by the trial Judge that the allegations of having illicit relationship and extra marital affair made by the wife against the husband amounted to cruelty.” “21. Though the wife expressed here willingness to live with the husband but we have a feeling and the entire facts and circumstances of the case also indicate that the marriage between the parties is dead both emotionally and practically and continuance of matrimonial alliance would amount to prolonging the agony and affliction which, in itself, may amount to cruelty. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the husband respondent is entitled to a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and the impugned judgment and decree of divorce passed by the trial Judge does not call for any interference. The appeal filed by the wife is liable to be dismissed.” 11.10 In the case of Samar Ghosh v . Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 , a three judge Bench o f the Supreme Court dealt in detail as to what would constitute cruelty under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act. The appeal filed by the wife is liable to be dismissed.” 11.10 In the case of Samar Ghosh v . Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 , a three judge Bench o f the Supreme Court dealt in detail as to what would constitute cruelty under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act. It emphasized that the entire matrimonial relationship should be examined , as cruelty may not be in a violent act or acts but in a given case has to be gathered from injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations, taunts, etc. The Court relied on the definition of cruelty in matrimonial relationships in Halsbury’s Laws of England (Vol 13, 4th Edn, Para 1269, Pg 602) which is extracted below : “The general rule in all cases of cruelty is that the entire matrimonial relationship must be considered, and that rule is of special value when the cruelty consists not of violent acts but of injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations or taunts. In cases where no violence is averred, it is undesirable to consider judicial pronouncements with a view to creating certain categories of acts or conduct as having or lacking the nature or quality which renders them capable or incapable in all circumstances of amounting to cruelty; for it is the effect of the conduct rather than its nature which is of paramount importance in assessing a complaint of cruelty. Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact and previously decided cases have little, if any, value. The court should bear in mind the physical and mental condition of the parties as well as their social status, and should consider the impact of the personality and conduct of one spouse on the mind of the other, weighing all incidents and quarrels between the spouses from that point of view; further, the conduct alleged must be examined in the light of the complainant's capacity for endurance and the extent to which that capacity is known to the other spouse. Malevolent intention is not essential to cruelty but it is an important element where it exists.”” In its conclusion , it gave some illustrations of human behavior which would be relevant for deciding cases dealing with “mental cruelty”, and held as follows: “101. Malevolent intention is not essential to cruelty but it is an important element where it exists.”” In its conclusion , it gave some illustrations of human behavior which would be relevant for deciding cases dealing with “mental cruelty”, and held as follows: “101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of 'mental cruelty'. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive. (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. (iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. 11.11. The Supreme Court in the case of Shri Rakesh Raman v. Smt. Kavitha : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 497 , a recent decision delivered on 26.04.2023 has held it may not always be possible to pin point to an act of “cruelty” or blameworthy conduct of the spouse. The nature of relationship, the general behaviour of the parties towards each other and long separation between the two are relevant factors which a Court must take into consideration and that irretrievable breakdown of marriage may not be a ground for divorce but a marriage which has broken down irretrievably spells cruelty to both the parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the other with cruelty and is therefore a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13( 1) ( i-a) . The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted below : “16. Matrimonial cases before the Courts pose a different challenge, quite unlike any other, as we are dealing with human relationships with its bundle of emotions, with all its faults and frailties. The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted below : “16. Matrimonial cases before the Courts pose a different challenge, quite unlike any other, as we are dealing with human relationships with its bundle of emotions, with all its faults and frailties. It is not possible in every case to pin point to an act of “cruelty” or blameworthy conduct of the spouse. The nature of relationship, the general behaviour of the parties towards each other, or long separation between the two are relevant factors which a Court must take into consideration.” “17……..Irretrievable breakdown of a marriage may not be a ground for dissolution of marriage, under the Hindu Marriage Act , but cruelty is. A marriage can be dissolved by a decree of divorce, inter alia, on the ground when the other party “has, after the solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty”(Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955). In our considered opinion, a marital relationship which has only become more bitter and acrimonious over the years, does nothing but inflicts cruelty on both the sides. To keep the facade of this broken marriage alive would be doing injustice to both the parties. A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, in our opinion spells cruelty to both the parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the other with cruelty. It is therefore a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.” 11.12 Cruelty is a ground for divorce under Section – 13 ( 1 ) ( ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act . From a reading of the statutory provisions and aforesaid decisions it is clear that cruelty can be of two types- mental and physical and both carry the same weight . Physical cruelty can be ascertained from the injuries caused , but to ascertain mental cruelty the effect of the behavior / conduct of one spouse on the other spouse has to be considered. . Trivial quarrels , difference of opinion between spouses is not uncommon in a marriage . But injurious reproaches , taunts , studied neglect, indifference , baseless accusations pertaining to character may come in the category of mental cruelty when they result in acute embarrassment , humiliation and anguish in the other spouse so as to make it impossible for them to live together as husband and wife . But injurious reproaches , taunts , studied neglect, indifference , baseless accusations pertaining to character may come in the category of mental cruelty when they result in acute embarrassment , humiliation and anguish in the other spouse so as to make it impossible for them to live together as husband and wife . While considering the impact of the conduct of the spouse who is alleged to have inflicted mental cruelty , the physical and mental condition of the spouses as well as their social status has to be kept in mind . Though no uniform standard can be laid down regarding the type of behavior which would amount to mental cruelty , but instances have been enumerated in the case of Samar Ghosh ( supra ) . Whatever the nature of behavior – it should be such nature so as to make the married life intolerable or miserable and extremely difficult for a spouse to live with the other spouse any longer . EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES 12. For proper appreciation of the disputes between the parties, it is necessary to consider the various allegations made by the appellant in his petition and the evidence led by him and the reply and counter- allegations made by the respondent in her reply and the oral evidence adduced by her. 13. The appellant has examined himself as P.W.1. and has examined his co - villagers Kailash Chandra Samal and Bikram Keshari Samal as P.W 2 and P.W 3 respectively. 13.1 The incidents about which the appellant has narrated in order to establish the grounds of cruelty and desertion are as follows:. i) After their marriage, they stayed happily in village- Kantipur . After about six months of the marriage, the respondent made false allegations that he had extra marital affairs with another lady. ii) On 25.01.2013 when the appellant did not agree to the proposal of the respondent to live separately in Jajpur Town as he cannot leave his old ailing parents in the village for her happiness, the respondent became furious and abused him saying “rustic, bastard, etc.” iii) On 15.08.2013 at 10.30 am the appellant requested the respondent to help his mother in cooking as she was ailing. The respondent became furious and told him that she was not his maid servant. The respondent became furious and told him that she was not his maid servant. She then took her minor daughter to their bedroom and went to sleep till 3.30 pm locking the door from inside. After repeated call by the appellant, she opened the door and on being questioned, got enraged and brought a broom and assaulted the appellant with it. iv) In the meeting convened in the village on 15.08.2013, the respondent openly declared that the appellant was not a man of her choice. v) On 25.08.2013 at about 10.30 am, she prepared to leave for her parents house with bag and baggage without informing the appellant. When he asked her the reason, she spat on his face and threatened to kill by administering poison if he detained her .She left with their minor daughter on that day, deserting him . vi) On 26.08.2013, he had been to the house of the respondent with his parents to bring her back. But in presence of her parents she showed him her slipper and threatened to assault him and finally denied to return with the appellant. vii) In the last three years, inspite of several efforts by the appellant, the respondent has not come back. viii) On 28.09.2017, at 4.30 pm, the appellant had met the respondent at her parents house and expressed his willingness to bring her and their daughter home by forgetting the past incident, but she insulted him calling him a “street dog”. He has stated in cross examination, that he has not filed any FIR regarding the incident of 25.08.2013 and that he has visited the paternal house of his wife on three occasions. He has admitted that he has not given anything to his wife and daughter after 25.08.2013 for their maintenance. 13.2 . P.W. 2 Kailash Chandra Samal is a co villager of the appellant. He has stated that he learnt about the incident which took place on 15.08.2013 from both the appellant and the respondent . He has stated that the incident declared in the meeting on the same day that the appellant was not of her choice. He has also stated that being called by the appellant, he has accompanied the appellant and his family members to the house of the respondent to bring her back and the respondent misbehaved with the appellant in presence of the family members including him. He has also stated that being called by the appellant, he has accompanied the appellant and his family members to the house of the respondent to bring her back and the respondent misbehaved with the appellant in presence of the family members including him. She denied to accompany them and threatened to assault him by showing her slipper. He has also stated that the respondent is a belligerent woman who quarreled with the appellant and his family members over trivial matters, gets up late and does not cooperate in doing any household work. He has been examined and cross examined on 17.05.2018 and has withstood the cross examination. 13.3 . P.W. 3 Bikram Keshari Samal is another co –villager of the appellant and has stated that after six months of the marriage, the respondent started suspecting the appellant and complaining that he was having extra marital affairs with another lady. He has stated about the quarrel on 25.01.2013 when the respondent was persuading the appellant to live separately at Jajpur Town, and on his refusal abused him calling him a “Rustic, Bastard”, etc. He as stated that he was present in the village meeting held on 15.08.2013 where he learned about failure of the respondent to do any housework, look after her ailing parents in law, helping her mother in law with cooking and sleeping in her bedroom from 10.30am to 3.30pm with her daughter and after the appellant repeatedly called her, of opening the door and assaulting the appellant with a broom. He has stated that as per his knowledge, the respondent is a quarrelsome lady and not interested to live with the appellant and in the meeting on 15.08.2013 had openly declared that the appellant was not a man of her choice. He has been examined and cross examined on 25.06.2018 and has withstood the cross examination 14. As mentioned earlier, the Respondent has examined herself as R.W1 and her father Jairam Biswal as R.W.2. 14.1 The Respondent has made counter allegations against the appellant and his family members. She has stated that when she was staying in Cuttack in her father in laws house, her sister law Jalli used to torture her. Her in laws supported Jalli to torture her. Her husband did not accompany her for her medical check up and provide proper medicine. She has stated that when she was staying in Cuttack in her father in laws house, her sister law Jalli used to torture her. Her in laws supported Jalli to torture her. Her husband did not accompany her for her medical check up and provide proper medicine. In spite of the torture, she has done the duty of a good daughter in law and wife. Her husband did not spend time with her nor care for their daughter. She was not being provided proper food by her in laws. Her husband had left her and her daughter in her father’s house and never made any attempt to take them back. She was always ready and willing to reside with her husband for the sake of their daughter and had expressed her willingness to resume a conjugal life with him during conciliation, but he did not agree. She stated that she has never seen Kailash Ch. Samal and Bikram Keshari Samal in her husband’s house when she was living there. She had gone to the village when her father in law died, and stayed there for seven days but her husband did not come to her and she was tortured during her stay. She denied about the appellant coming to her house on 28.09.2017 and denied that she misbehaved with him. She has stated that their daughter is pursuing her studies staying with her and the appellant has not paid anything for her education or their maintenance. He was earning Rs 40,000/- at time of marriage and this had increased to Rs.60,000/-. She had applied to ABIT, but ABIT did not supply the information stating it is not covered under the RTI Act. She has made the alternative prayer of award of permanent alimony in case reconciliation cannot be effected. 14.2 R.W.2 Jairam Biswal, father of the respondent has stated that he had learnt from his daughter about torture by her sister in law who was staying her father’s and brother’s house and that her in law’s were supporting and persuading her to torture her . As per his knowledge the respondent was performing as wife and daughter in law and that while she was pregnant, the appellant and the in laws were not taking proper care of her. As per his knowledge the respondent was performing as wife and daughter in law and that while she was pregnant, the appellant and the in laws were not taking proper care of her. He has stated that the appellant himself brought the respondent and their daughter home and on 28.09.2017, he had not come to his house to take them back . He has denied that his daughter insulted him . He has stated that he had attempted many times to resolve their marital life but in vain. DISCUSSION, ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION 15. The learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur has disbelieved that P.W 2 had accompanied the appellant on 26.08.2013 to the house of the respondent as the Appellant had not mentioned his name in his evidence and disbelieved P.W.3 as the appellant has not stated about the presence in his house on 15.01.2013 and he is not related to the appellant . These reasons are not sufficient for rejecting the evidence of P.W 2 and 3 altogether. That P.W 2 accompanied the appellant on 26.08.2013 to the house of R.W 2 and that P.W.3 was present in the house of the appellant on 15.01.2013, may be disbelieved. But there is no ground to discard their evidence altogether as they are independent witnesses not related to the appellant. In a matrimonial dispute, apart from the parties themselves, it is the family members, friends and neighbours who are the best witnesses. Our view is supported by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Vishwanath vs Sau. Sarla Vishwanath reported in 2012(7) SCC 288 where it has been held as follows: “39. Presently to the core issue, viz the appellant husband had made out a case for mental cruelty to entitle him to get a decree of divorce . At this juncture, we may unhesitantly state that the trial court as well as the first appellate court have disbelieved the evidence of most of the witnesses cited on behalf of the husband on the ground that they are interested witnesses. In a matrimonial dispute, it would be inappropriate to expect outsiders to come and depose. The family members and sometimes the relatives, friends and neighbours are the most natural witnesses. In a matrimonial dispute, it would be inappropriate to expect outsiders to come and depose. The family members and sometimes the relatives, friends and neighbours are the most natural witnesses. The veracity of the testimony is to be tested on objective parameters and not to be thrown overboard on the ground that the witnesses are related to either of the spouse.”… 16. The respondent has not made any allegation in her written statement or evidence that the appellant was having extra marital affair or that she had accused him of having an affair. In fact her father - R.W. 2 has stated in his cross examination at Paragraph 20 that the appellant is a person of good character and he has no grievance against him. So the averment of the respondent making allegations about his extra marital affair is unfounded. 17. The respondent has not been able to substantiate her allegations about torture or ill treatment by the appellant or his parents. She has not explained the circumstances or the incidents or approximate dates when she was subjected to physical or mental cruelty. She has stated that her sister in law was torturing her when they were staying in Cuttack, but she has not stated when they were staying in Cuttack. She has admitted that she has not lodged any police report against the appellant or his family members. Hence we find that allegations of dowry torture against the appellant and his parents have not been substantiated by oral evidence or otherwise. 18. The incident which took place on 25.01.2013 cannot be disbelieved as the evidence of the appellant on that score is cogent and is supported by P.W. 3. Evidence of P.W.3 inspires confidence and cannot be disbelieved only because the appellant had not stated about his presence at the spot. 19. The incident that took place on 15.08.2013 in the house of the appellant when he asked the respondent to help his mother with cooking cannot be disbelieved merely because the respondent has denied the incident, as the same was discussed in the meeting held in the same day and P.W. 2 and P.W 3 who are his co villagers and who attended the meeting have corroborated the evidence of the appellant on that score. 20. 20. Regarding open declaration of the respondent in the village meeting held on 15.08.213 in the night , to the effect that the appellant was not of her choice , the evidence of the appellant has been corroborated by the evidence of the appellant , P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. 21. From a careful reading of the evidence adduced by the parties which includes the plaint, written statement and the oral evidence, it is apparent that differences between the parties arose after six months of their marriage and the respondent has admitted to have stayed in her matrimonial house for only one and half years. 22. The appellant has not been able to prove that the respondent left for her parents house on her own on 26.08.2013 with their daughter. While the appellant has asserted that she did not come back inspite of his efforts, the respondent has denied that he made any effort to bring her back. The respondent has stated about going to her matrimonial house in the year 2017 after the death of her father in law and staying there for seven days , which has not been challenged in cross examination . She has also stated that she is willing to resume her marital life for the sake of their daughter. So we are not satisfied that the appellant has been able to prove the desertion by the Respondent . 23. Considering the social status of the appellant and the incidents highlighted in his evidence –she abused him in slang language in front of others ; abnormal reaction to a request to assist the mother in law to prepare food ; shutting herself in her bedroom for hours together and assaulting him with a broom when he questioned her; open declaration by her in a village meeting that her husband is not of her choice ; when taken together , in our considered view amount to cruelty and and the appellant- husband cannot be expected to lead a normal conjugal life with a spouse who indulges in such behavior. 24. That apart , the parties have been staying apart for almost ten years (since 25.08.2013). Efforts made for conciliation in the Family Court and by us before we heard the appeal finally have failed. So for all practical purposes the marriage has broken down. 24. That apart , the parties have been staying apart for almost ten years (since 25.08.2013). Efforts made for conciliation in the Family Court and by us before we heard the appeal finally have failed. So for all practical purposes the marriage has broken down. We are convinced that “the matrimonial bond is beyond repair” (see Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh (supra). 25. After considering the evidence on record in the light of the decisions referred to above, we are of the view that the appellant has been able to prove that he is entitled to divorce on the ground of cruelty. The respondent has stated that she is willing to return to the husband for the sake of their daughter . But in view of the above discussion , we are convinced that directing the parties to resume their marital relationship would amount to cruelty as the marital relationship has lost all its emotional bonding . PERMANENT ALIMONY 24. The question that has now to be determined is the amount of permanent alimony. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vrs. Neha : (2021) 2 SCC 324 has laid down the guidelines for arriving at the reasonable amount. In the present appeal, the parties have not filed affidavits regarding their estates, resources and liabilities. The Appellant has not given any information regarding his income but has in paragraph 17 of his evidence has admitted that he is working as Assistant Professor in Mathematics in ABIT and he has also stated that his ancestral properties have not been partitioned as yet. The respondent has however stated her evidence given in the form of affidavit dated 24.08.2018 at paragraph 5 that the monthly income of the appellant is Rs 40,000/- and at present it would be Rs 60,000/- .Her father R.W. 2 has stated at paragraph 4 of his evidence that at the time of negotiation of marriage , the appellant and his father had disclosed that his salary is Rs 40,000/- . 25 . After perusing the averments and documents relating to the financial status of the parties, we are inclined to hold that the gross monthly income of the appellant will presently be around Rs 70,000/- per month. The respondent is aged about 42 years now. She is maintaining their daughter. 25 . After perusing the averments and documents relating to the financial status of the parties, we are inclined to hold that the gross monthly income of the appellant will presently be around Rs 70,000/- per month. The respondent is aged about 42 years now. She is maintaining their daughter. Considering her age , status of the appellant-husband, and applying a little guesswork regarding deductions in his salary and the amount required by him to maintain himself, we feel that the ends of justice would be served, if the appellant- husband is directed to pay an amount of Rs 30 lakhs towards permanent alimony to the respondent –wife. The said amount is arrived at keeping in view the interest the amount would fetch in the event the amount is invested in any nationalized bank in fixed deposit. 26 . Consequently, we allow the appeal as well as Civil Proceeding No.247 of 2017 . We set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Judge, Family Court and dissolve the marriage that was solemnized between the parties on 27.06.2012 by a decree of divorce and direct the appellant to pay the sum of Rs Thirty lakhs only to the respondent within three months from the date of issue of the decree towards permanent alimony. If the alimony is not paid within the stipulated time, it will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization . Decree be drawn up accordingly.