JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals are between the same parties. Appeal No. 787/2003 arises out of civil case no. 178/01, which was decided by the Family Court, Udaipur on 24.9.2003 by which the application for dissolution of marriage filed by respondent Raj Kumar under Section 13(1 A) of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed and decree of dissolution of marriage was passed. 2. Appeal No. 788/2003 arises out of civil Misc. Case No. 43/2001, which was decided by the Family Court, Udaipur on 24.9.2003 by which the application filed by appellant Smt. Santosh Kunwar for rescinding the decree passed under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act at the instance of i husband for judicial Separation on an application moved under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed. 3. The decree for judicial separation was passed on 6.6.2000 on an application for dissolution of marriage by the husband. The learned Judge, Family Court in its decision on the said application has found that dispute between husband and wife appears to be trivial and instead of dissolving the marriage, the decree for judicial separation was passed with a hope that parties may reconcile in future and marriage may be restored. However, on expiration of two years from the passing of the decree of judicial separation, husband moved an application under Section 13(1A) inter alia on the ground that since two years have elapsed after passing of the decree of judicial separation and during this period the parties to the marriage had not resumed cohabitation, a decree of dissolution of marriage was prayed. 4. During the pendency of these appeals, we have called the parties to make an effort to reconcile and to see that normalcy may be restored to the matrimonial home of the parties. However, efforts for reconciliation failed. 5. During these proceedings application was also moved on behalf of appellant that in case decree of dissolution of marriage is confirmed, she may be awarded permanent alimony and also that some amount in lump sum may also be awarded for maintenance of only daughter born out of aforesaid wedlock. 6. The marriage was solemnized on 8.5.1995. A female child was born on 7.10.1996. 6. The marriage was solemnized on 8.5.1995. A female child was born on 7.10.1996. During the period when appellant- wife was carrying, she left her matrimonial home on first "Holi" notwithstanding resistance by her husband, which has ultimately resulted in escalating strained relation between the parties and the parties have nct united thereafter. Apparently, decree for judicial separation dated 6.6.2000 was founded on the acceptance of the ground in favour of the husband that wife has left the matrimonial home and living separately without just and reasonable cause. That being the case, if parties have not resumed cohabitation within two years of the passing of the decree for judicial separation, either party gets a right to seek dissolution of marriage on that ground, which is recognised by a well known principle that when marriage is broken irretrievably, the parties may not be compelled to carry on the relationship which is dead. 7. It is also to be noticed that once such a decree comes into existence, a right accrues to both the parties irrespective of the fact that who has sought the decree. When either party being not willing to carry on with the marriage, it is not possible to force the parties to remain tied in a wedlock. Merely on the ground that the party, who was held responsible for deserting the matrimonial home, without reasonable cause, is now willing to return to matrimonial home, cannot compel the other party to matrimony to resume cohabitation and to live together. In the absence of such possibility, rescission of decree of judicial separation will be a futile exercise and results in more agony. This is besides the position of law that in the present case no such good ground is made out for rescinding the earlier decree. The decree of judicial separation can be rescinded or made operative on the joint consent of the parties but cannot be dependent on willingness of one party alone. 8. We are, therefore, of the opinion that necessary plea for grant of decree of dissolution of marriage having been made out, namely, non resumption of cohabitation within two years after the decree of judicial separation has been passed, no interference in the impugned judgment in both the appeals is called for. Even the failure of reconciliation efforts is a pointer to the fact that marriage has broken irretrievably. 9. Even the failure of reconciliation efforts is a pointer to the fact that marriage has broken irretrievably. 9. In view of the above, both the appeals are dismissed. 10. Coming to the application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act for permanent alimony moved by the wife, it is apparent from the certificate of salary of respondent-husband produced before the court that he is a L.D.C. in a Government Department and presently his pay is about Rs. 8992/-. After reducing therefrom the statutory deductions, the take home amount comes to Rs. 7448/-. It is also not in dispute that respondent is completing 18 years of service and will soon become eligible for grant of selection scale in terms of Govt. order dated 25.1.1992 which would further escalate his emoluments. The appellant has asked for a lump sum permanent alimony of Rs. 2 lacs for herself and Rs. 2 lacs for maintenance of only daughter, amounting to total of Rs. 4 lacs. The respondent husband while is prepared for reasonable sum of permanent alimony or monthly payment for wife and daughter has expressed his inability to pay lump sum amount of Rs. 2 lacs. 11. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that daughter is aged 10 years and is studying in a public school at Udaipur and wife is staying at village Kunthwas and with the growing in age the expenses of daughter for her maintenance are likely to increase and that the increasing cost of living equally affects the dependents. 12. In the circumstances, we deem it just and proper to direct that respondent husband shall deposit Rs. 2 lacs in a post office account, which may be opened by Smt. Santosh Kunwar in the name of her daughter. The said sum may be deposited by respondent Raj Kumar in two instalments of Rs. 1 lac each. First instalment shall be paid through a bank draft by 31.1.2006 and remaining amount of Rs. 1 lac may be paid by 30.4.2006. This will discharge the respondent from his future liability of maintenance in respect of daughter. The interest income from the aforesaid amount deposited with the post office may be withdrawn by Smt. Santosh Kunwar as guardian of daughter Dimple to be used for her maintenance and education. 1 lac may be paid by 30.4.2006. This will discharge the respondent from his future liability of maintenance in respect of daughter. The interest income from the aforesaid amount deposited with the post office may be withdrawn by Smt. Santosh Kunwar as guardian of daughter Dimple to be used for her maintenance and education. However, she shall not be entitled to withdraw any part of the corpus without the permission of the Court for which necessary application may be made to the Family Court, Udaipur. With the deposit of Rs. 2 lacs in the name of daughter Dimple, the amount which is otherwise paid monthly for maintenance of child shall cease to be paid. However, until the amount is deposited, the respondent husband shall pay Rs. 1800/- per month as maintenance to daughter Dimple also. The amount payable until deposit of Rs. 2 lacs as aforesaid shall be absolute liability and shall not be adjustable against lump sum payment. The liability to pay Rs. 1800/- per month shall cease on deposit of full amount of Rs. 2 lacs as scheduled above. 13. So far as appellant Santosh Kunwar is concerned, she may be paid Rs. 1750/- per month by 10th of every month. The amount of maintenance payable to wife shall be paid until she lives or remarries.Both appeal disposed of as per above directions. *******