1 2025:CGHC:56958-DB The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 21.8.2025 24-11-2025 - 24-11-2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 21-08-2025 Judgment delivered on : 24-11-2025 FA(MAT) No. 37 of 2023 Jitendra Kumar Sahu S/o Umed Ram Sahu, Aged About 35 Years Plot 65/1 Sundar Nagar Kohka Police Station Supela Bhilai Tehsil And District Durg Halmukam- SQ-E/24 Sector 4 Thana - Sector 3 Rourkela District Sundargad Odisha. --- Appellant versus Shrimati Neeta Sahu W/o Jitendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Plot -27 Road No 3 Pradipti Nagar Tehsil, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent FA(MAT) No. 38 of 2023 Jitendra Kumar Sahu S/o Umed Ram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o E/24 Sector 4 Thana-Sector 3 Rourkela District Sundargad Odisha --- Appellant Versus 2 Shrimati Neeta Sahu W/o Jitendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Plot 27 Road No. 3, Pradipti Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Aagney Sail, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sumit Singh with Ms. Vaishali Jaiswani, Advocates. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ CAV Judgment Per Rajani Dubey, J The appellant/husband has filed FA(MAT) No.37/2023 challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2022 passed by II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in Civil Suit No.711/2014 whereby application filed by the respondent/wife u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed whereas in FA(MAT) No.38/2023 the appellant calls in question the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2022 passed by the said Court in Civil Suit No.418/2017 dismissing his application under Section 13(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short “the Act of 1955”) seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. Being so, both these appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 02. The admitted facts in this case are that marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized on 4.3.2009 at Sai Mangalam Bhavan, Bhilai as per Hindu rites and rituals and from their wedlock, a son namely Vihan was born. 03. The respondent/wife filed an application under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights with the averments that after marriage, her in-laws would harass and ill-treat her over every trivial issue. On 3 18.3.2009 they went to Nainital for honeymoon and after returning from there, the appellant sent her to her parental house with his friend for appearing in some examination but later on the appellant and his parents taunted her parents over telephone that she left the matrimonial home to avoid the household work. Thereupon when her younger brother brought her back to her matrimonial home, they were not allowed to enter the home, so he left her at the door and went back. However, again the appellant and his family members started quarelling and abusing her filthily. She was not even allowed to go to her parental house on festivals etc. During her pregnancy, the appellant, who was working in Rourkela (Orissa), did not take her to doctor for proper treatment and rather used to frequently come from Rourkela to Bhilai as a result of which she suffered miscarriage. During her second pregnancy in June, 2010 also the appellant and his family members instead of providing her medical care, misbehaved, ill-treated and beat her even in presence of her parents and asked them to take her back, so she returned to her parental house and lodged a report at Mahila Thana, Durg. Next day, the appellant along with her in-laws came to her parental house and again raised quarrel over return of their articles, therefore, she gave an application to their society and accordingly, as per decision of their society the appellant was to come to take her back to the matrimonial home on 15.12.2010 but neither he came nor did he get her medically treated. Even when she delivered a child at Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai, he did not come to see him nor bore the expenses. 04. She further averred that on 1.5.2011 when she along with her son went to her matrimonial home at Sunder Nagar, Kohka, the appellant and his family members misbehaved with her and ousted her. Even when brother of 4 her husband namely Mukesh died due to drowning in swimming pool, the appellant/husband did not let her attend his funeral. He did not give her money for her personal expenses and in January, 2013 he again forcibly got her abortion. She stated that at the time of marriage of her brother, the appellant and his family members misbehaved with them but she tolerated all this with the hope that everything would get normal with the passage of time. In March, 2014 while she was living at her matrimonial home, she was again abused and beaten, so she called her father and thereafter with the help of police, she was rescued from there. Since then she is living at her parental house and the appellant husband made no efforts to take her back. Rather he filed an application u/s 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Raurkela but the same was subsequently withdrawn on 4.8.2015. Therefore, the application u/s 9 of the Act of 1955 may be allowed and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights be granted in her favour. 05. In his written statement, the appellant/husband except the admitted facts, denied all the adverse averments and stated that in May 2009 mother of the respondent/wife told him over telephone that they are going to Vaishnav Devi with family and asked him to send the respondent to her parental house so that she could prepare meals for her brother. However, he refused as he was also alone at that time and had shift duty but the respondent insisted on going to her parental house, she quarreled with him, even beat him and did not make food for a week. Ultimately, the appellant sent her with his friend Vikram to Bhilai where she stayed from 4th May to 14th May 2009 and thereafter went to her parental house saying his father that she would be back on 17th May but did not return on that day and on 18th May her mother informed his father that she would stay at her parental house till 5 their arrival from Vaishnav Devi. On 18th May she was brought to her matrimonial home by her brother and again she started misbehaving with his parents, so his father sent her back to her parental house on 19th May 2009. She returned from there on 28th May and 2-3 days thereafter the appellant took her with him to Raurkela. On 22nd August, 2009 when the appellant and the respondent were living in Bhilai, her father took her back to his house on the occasion of Teeja. Though the appellant requested her father for dropping her at Raurkela as he has already taken many leaves but she was not sent. However, she alone came to Raurekla. Thus, since marriage the respondent/wife treated the appellant/husband and his family members with cruelty and made every possible efforts for their implication in criminal cases by making false reports against them. Therefore, the application filed u/s 9 of the Act of 1955 is liable to be rejected. 06. The appellant/husband also filed an application u/s 13 of the Act of 1955 for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty on 27.6.2017 which was registered as Civil Suit No.418/2017 wherein he reiterated the aforesaid allegations. He also averred that the respondent/wife did not want to conceive, therefore, she deliberately consumed abortion pills. In February 2010 when his father was critically ill and admitted in hospital for 10 days, she forced him to go back Raurkela or else she would commit suicide, so he had to leave for Raurkela leaving his father in serious condition. She used to quarrel and get aggressive over every trivial issue and would threaten him of implicating in false criminal cases. She also made false complaint to his department in May 2011. In May, 2011 she even assaulted him with iron rod on his head. She also used to beat their son without any rhyme or reason 6 and confine him in bathroom after tying his hands and legs. For all these reasons, he prayed for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. 07. The respondent/wife in her written statement denied all the adverse averments and stated that she never treated the appellant or his family members with cruelty, rather she was discharging all the marital obligations properly. In fact, it is the appellant who would misbehave with her, did not give her money for her personal expenses, did not provide her proper medical treatment as a result of which she suffered abortion. When in June 2010 their son Vihar was born, the appellant did not bear the medical expenses. She never threatened the appellant for his false implication in dowry case. She is still ready and willing to live with him. Therefore, the application u/s 13 of the Act of 1955 may be rejected. 08. On the basis of pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Family Court framed certain issues in the respective suits and by separate judgment and decree 20.12.2022 allowed the application u/s 9 of the Act of 1955 and dismissed the suit of the appellant/husband u/s 13 of the Act of 1955. Hence both these appeals by the appellant/husband. 09. Learned counsel for the appellant/husband would submit that the impugned judgments and decrees are contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and as such, liable to be set aside. Learned Family Court failed to take into consideration that the respondent/wife tortured the appellant physically as well as mentally, there has been total disappearance of the notional substratum in the marriage; both the parties are facing this situation since their marriage in 2009; there is no acceptable way in which the spouse can be compelled to resume life with the consort, nothing is going to be gained by trying to keep the parties tied forever to a 7 marriage which has been wrecked behind the hope of salvage. There is sufficient material on record to judicially perceive that the respondent committed mental and physical cruelty to the appellant. She used to consume abortion pills without informing or discussing with the appellant and thus aborted the pregnancy twice. Learned Family Court ought to have seen that the parties are living in a very stressed environment and there have been constant fights between them since their marriage. He would further argue that in order to hide her inhumane conduct and cruelty and to justify herself she lodged a false complaint against the appellant and he had to struggle hard to maintain his dignity and prove his innocence. She was not only cruel to the appellant but also to her parents and other family members. Once she even tried to hurt her mother-in-law with a knife and also hit the appellant with iron rod on his head. Learned Family Court without framing specific issue of cruelty, allowed the suit u/s 9 and held that the appellant failed to prove cruelty on the part of the respondent and dismissed his suit for divorce. He submitted that her conduct towards their child was also inhumane as she used to beat him unnecessarily and lock him up in the washroom after tying his hands and legs which caused mental trauma to the child as well. The parties are not at a stage of reconciling with each other and they are living separately since long, therefore, instead of granting decree of restitution of conjugal rights, the learned Family Court ought to have granted a decree of divorce by allowing the suit of the appellant u/s 13. Therefore, both the impugned judgments and decrees are liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the matters of Dharmendra Kumar Vs. Usha Kumar, (1977) 4 SCC 12; and Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCR 428. 8 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/wife opposing the contention of the appellant/husband would submit that the learned Family Court after minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and conduct of the parties, rightly allowed the application u/s 9 of the wife and dismissed the application u/s 13 of the Act of 1955 of the appellant/husband by the impugned judgments and decrees holding that he utterly failed to prove cruelty on the part of the respondent/wife. The same being well merited need no interference by this Court and both the appeals are liable to be dismissed as meritless. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the matter of NG Dastane Vs. S. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326; Neelam Kumar Vs. Dayarani, (2010) 13 SCC 298; Gurubux Singh Vs. Harminder Kaur, (2010) 14 SCC 301 and Smt. Saroj Rani Vs. Sudarshan Kumar chadha, (1984) 4 SCC 90. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. It is clear from the record of learned Family Court that before the Family Court the respondent/wife filed an application u/s 9 of the Act of 1955 on 9.9.2014 which was registered as Civil Suit No.711/2014 and the appellant/husband filed application u/s 13A of the Act of 1955 on 27.6.2017 which was registered as Civil Suit No.418/2017. Learned Family Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record by separate judgments and decrees dated 20.12.2022 allowed the application u/9 and dismissed the application u/s 13A of the Act of 1955. 13. It is an admitted position in this case that marriage of both the parties took place on 4.3.2009 as per Hindu rites and rituals and from their wedlock, 9 one son was born. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Family Court framed following issues in the respective suits: In Civil Suit No.711/2014 क. वाद ्ቚ्቞ निष्क्ቧ 1 क्या अनावेदक क ቛኋरा बि ना बिकसी उचित औरा याሹኌक्त सीगत ्ቚबितहेत क बि ना आवेदिदक क सीहेया सी वेचित करा दिदया गया हे ? "हे" 2 क्या आवेदिदक, अनावेदक क बिवेरू्ቍ द्ቘत्या अधि%करा& क' पुनाᮍᯘपुना क' आ्ሺ቎ኌ,त पुना क' अधि%करा हे? "हे" In Civil Suit No.418/2017 क. वाद ्ቚ्቞ निष्क्ቧ 1 क्या अनावेदिदक ना आवेदक क ्ቚबित ቅ኏. रातपु.्ቓ ्ቤवेहेरा बिकया हे ? " ्ቚमाणि्ቓत नाहे3 " 2 क्या ्ቚ቞ኋ%ना ्ቚकरा्ቓ ्ቚस्तत हेना क ठी7क द वे्ቧ पु.वे सी अनावेदिदक ना आवेदक क पुरिरात्याग बिकया हे? " ्ቚमाणि्ቓत नाहे3 " 14. AW-1 Jitendra Kumar Sahu, husband, filed various documents such as police reports Ex.P/3, P/4 & P/5; receipts of medicine Ex.P/6 to P/13; sonography report of the wife and other medical documents Ex.P/14 to P/19; documents related to case at Family Court, Raurkela Ex.P/21; bank statement Ex.P/22; car loan statement Ex.P/23; application filed by the wife u/s 12 of Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act and other related documents Ex.P/24; documents related to his son’s tuition fees and other expenses Ex.P/31 to P/41. In para 70 of cross-examination he admits that his wife conceived four times which was informed by herself, he did not make 10 any complaint either to the police or the society and also did not take her to doctor. He also admits that there is no dowry case pending against him and his family members. He also admits that he did not make any report to the police or the society regarding being hit by the wife with iron rod. In para 96 he admits that he made no efforts to bring his wife back. 15. AW-2 Murlidhar Sahu states that he along with the people of the community went to the house of the respondent/wife and made her understand but she refused to go back. AW-3 Umedram Sahu, father of the appellant, supported the statement of the appellant and stated that on 4.7.2010 he along with his son/appellant and people of the community went to the house of the respondent/wife for convincing her but she misbehaved with them and sought two months’ time to think over it, so they came back. In cross-examination he admits that his wife was made to run by the respondent with a knife but he did not make any police report of this incident. 16. NAW-1 Neeta Sahu, respondent/wife, in para 69 of her cross- examination admits that she filed the documents related to the proceedings of Sahu Mitra Sabha held on 29.8.2010. However, she denied the suggestion of the husband that she used to abuse him and her in-laws. In para 93 she admits that on 12.3.2014 she did not attend the marriage of appellant’s brother. She also admits that since then she has not gone to the house of the appellant. She then volunteers that that though she wanted to go back after talking with her husband over phone but he has been refusing to take her back. In para 94 she admits that the appellant filed a case for custody of the child. In para 95 she admits that when the appellant’s father was operated upon in Bangalore she did not go to his house as she was not intimated about the same. She admits that the document of Ex.D/3 is in her own 11 handwriting and she signed the same. She denied the suggestion that looking to her cruel conduct, the appellant filed application u/s 10 of the Act of 1955. She admits that during pendency of that application, she filed an application u/s 9 of the Act of 1955. She denied the suggestion that during 19th May to 28th May she got her abortion done without informing the appellant and admitted this wrongdoing in the social meeting held 4th July and 28th August, 2010. In reply to the question at para 103 whether she ever resided at her in-laws’ house at Kohka for a continuous period of one month in any year till date since marriage, she states that in between March, 2009 and December, 2009 she resided at her in-laws’ house for one-one month twice, she does not remember the month and date today and since 10th August, 2011 she resided at her in-laws’ house at Kohka for one month. In her affidavit filed under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC she alleged that the accused kicked on her abdomen as a result of which she suffered miscarriage. In para 7 she states that on account of physical and mental cruelty committed by the appellant, she again suffered miscarriage in March 2013. In cross-examination she states that she cannot tell as to on which date and month her husband kicked her on the abdomen and admits that it is nowhere mentioned in her medical documents that she suffered miscarriage due to appellant kicking her on abdomen. She admits that on 3rd July 2010 she went to her parental house and on 26th June 2011 returned to the appellant. 17. NAW-3 Smt. Janak Bai, mother of the respondent, states that appellant’s behaviour with her daughter/respondent was not proper. On 14.10.2011 the appellant beat the respondent brutally and she (respondent) informed about the same to the officer of the appellant over phone. In 12 January, 2013 the appellant forcibly got her abortion done. In para 28 of cross-examination she denied the suggestion that people of the society were called by her for the purpose of compromise and that her daughter sought two months’ time for going back. She volunteers that the respondent sought three months’ time. She states that though the respondent was given three months’ time but the appellant did not take her back. 18. NAW-5 Latkhor Sahu, father of the respondent, supported the statement of his daughter. In para 21 of his cross-examination, he admits that when the appellant came to the social meeting at his house, Umendra Ram Sahu, Murlidhar Sahu and Bhpesh Sahu were present there. He denied the suggestion that the respondent refused to go back with the appellant and sought time. He then volunteers that as she was sick, some time was allowed to her. In para 23 he admits that in the meeting held at Bhilai, a fine of Rs.7000/- was imposed on him which was deposited by him. He also admits that some part of the delivery expenses of the respondent at Sector 9 Hospital was born by them and some part of the expenses was borne by the appellant’s department through his medical card. In para 26 he denies the suggestion that the respondent did not go to her in-laws’ house with them at the funeral of appellant’s brother. In para 29 he admits that the respondent made two complaints to the police against the appellant and his family members, upon which counselling was conducted where the appellant refused to take her back with him. 19. From close scrutiny of the statements of the parties and various documents filed by them in support of their pleadings, it transpires that after marriage the respondent/wife lived with the appellant/husband hardly for a month. The appellant filed an application u/s 10 of the Act of 1955 before the 13 Family Court, Raurkela on 24.6.2014 and the respondent filed application u/s 9 of the Act of 1955 on 9.9.2014. Both the parties filed several complaints against each other and the respondent admitted that she never lived with the appellant for more than a month. She also alleged that he used to beat her brutally as a result of which she suffered miscarriage but in cross- examination admitted that she did not file any medical evidence to buttress the said allegation. It is an admitted position in this case that since 2014 the parties are living separately. The parties have also filed documents of counseling proceedings in which they made allegations and counter allegations against each other. 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Samar Ghosh (supra) held in paras 101 and 102 of its judgment as under: “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. (1) 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. 14 (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. (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 15 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. (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty. 102. When we take into consideration aforementioned factors along with an important circumstance that the parties are admittedly living separately for more than sixteen and half years (since 27.8.1990) the irresistible conclusion would be that matrimonial bond has been ruptured beyond repair because of the mental cruelty caused by the respondent.” 21. In light of the above, if the facts and evidence emerging in the present case are seen, it is clear that the parties are admittedly living separately for more than 10 years i.e. since 2014, in social meetings and counseling they were not ready to sort out their differences/disputes. This Court also tried for meditation between them but as per mediation report dated 3.1.2025, it failed. It is also admitted by the respondent/wife that she did not go to the house of the appellant to attend funeral of his brother and see his father at the time of his operation. The conduct of the respondent/wife shows that she has not been with the appellant through thick and thin. 16 22. Having regard to the oral and documentary evidence on record in the present case it transpires that now the parties have no emotions, sentiments or feelings for each other at least since 2014. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Samar Ghosh (supra) observed in para 103 of its judgment as under: “103. The High Court in the impugned judgment seriously erred in reversing the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court in the impugned judgment ought to have considered the most important and vital circumstance of the case in proper perspective that the parties have been living separately since 27th August, 1990 and thereafter, the parties did not have any interaction with each other. When the appellant was seriously ill and the surgical intervention of bye-pass surgery had to be restored to, even on that occasion, neither the respondent nor her father or any member of her family bothered to enquire about the health of the appellant even on telephone. This instance is clearly illustrative of the fact that now the parties have no emotions, sentiments or feelings for each other at least since 27.8.1990. This is a clear case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. In our considered view, it is impossible to preserve or save the marriage. Any further effort to keep it alive would prove to be totally counter-productive.” 23. This Court also in FAM No.12/2019 in the matter of Smt. Richa Sahu Vs. Rajesh Sahu while dismissing the appeal filed by the wife against the judgment and decree of the Family Court granting decree of divorce in favour of the husband on the ground of cruelty, held in para 13 & 14 of its judgment dated 23.3.2022 as under: “13. After marriage, both the parties lived together only for the period of 10 months. Marriage of the parties was solemnized on 11.07.2013 and the appellant left the house of the respondent on 26.05.2014, and since then about 8 years have been passed and they have been living separately which shows the parties did not have any interaction with each other. The irresistible conclusion would be that matrimonial bond 17 has been raptured because of the mental cruelty caused by the appellant. 14. Appellant/wife admitted that she filed complaint case against husband and his mother after three months of leaving her matrimonial home i.e. on 26.05.2014. Appellant left her matrimonial house with the consent of her husband and, thereafter, she filed complaint case against husband and mother-in-law due to which respondent has suffered adverse consequences in his life. In this case, on the one hand wife has not shown her interest to live with the respondent and on the other, respondent examined himself as PW-1 before the trial Court in which he submitted in para 22 that he does not want to keep his wife with him. This is clearly illustrative of the fact that now the parties have no emotions, sentiments or feeling for each other. Thus, this is a clear case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and any further effort to keep it alive would prove to be totally counterproductive.” 24. In the present case also, looking to the conduct of both the parties, any further effort to keep their marital tie alive would prove to be totally counter- productive and would lead to unnecessary torture and harassment to them. In her cross-examination the respondent/wife admitted some suggestions and also gave explanation regarding her unusual behaviour that in fact she was cutting vegetables but the appellant/husband mistook it that she is going to assault his mother with knife. However, the learned Family Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in its proper perspective and concluded that the appellant/husband failed to prove cruelty on the part of the respondent/wife and accordingly while dismissing his application u/s 13 of the Act of 1955, allowed the application u/s 9 of the respondent/wife for restitution of conjugal rights. 25. On the basis of aforesaid discussions and in light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court referred to above, we are of the 18 opinion that the matrimonial bond between the parties seems to have been ruptured beyond repair and there is no possibility of their reunion. In these circumstances, we allow both the appeals and set aside the impugned judgments and decrees dated 20.12.2022 passed by learned II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in Civil Suits No.711/2014 and 418/2017. Consequently, the marriage solemnized between the parties on 4.3.2009 stands dissolved. 26. So far as grant of alimony to the respondent/wife is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that she is working as Assistant Grade-III in Family Court, Durg; she has the responsibility of minor son Vihan whereas the appellant/husband is working as Assistant General Manager in Steel Authority of India, Raurkela; as per his affidavit filed on 19th December, 2024 he is drawing monthly salary of Rs.86,000/- approx., we deem it appropriate to direct the appellant/husband to make payment of permanent alimony of Rs.25 lacs as one time settlement to the respondent/wife. Let a decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/ Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.11.24 16:32:06 +0530