JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The Judgment dtd. 3rd February, 2006 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in Civil Proceeding No. 101/2002 is assailed in this appeal filed u/s 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Respondent No. 1 being the wife of Appellant and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively being son and daughter, and minors, filed a petition under Sections 18 and 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act claiming maintenance. 2. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant had married Respondent No. 1 in consonance with Hindu rites and customs on 8.7.1995. Initially they led a blissful married life and out of their wedlock Respondents 2 and 3 (son and daughter) were born. Respondent No. 1 alleged that the Appellant misbehaved with her without any rhyme or reason often he used to come drunk to the house and even did not hesitate to assault her of and on. Respondent No. 1 further alleged that her in laws also used to torture her both mentally physically on the allegation that she had brought inadequate dowry. Several other overt acts were alleged to have been committed by the Appellant and the in-laws. Bereft of unnecessary details, it would suffice to state that the relationship reached a breaking point and it is alleged that Respondent No. 1 was driven out of her matrimonial house on 31.5.1996 and since then she is living with her parents. It is further alleged that she gave birth to Respondents 2 and 3 on 24th December, 1996 and that in spite of her best efforts and persuasion of her family members the Appellant never bothered to take Respondents to his house or to stay with them. Consequently she filed the petition claiming maintenance. 3. The Appellant, who was Respondent before the Judge, Family Court, appeared and filed has written statement denying all the allegations made against him and stating that the same had been made with an avowed oblique motive. The same were not only false, but also concocted. It was averred that he had lot of love and affection for his wife and children, had spent huge money for their betterment and also during pregnancy of Respondent No. 1, but Respondent No. 1 intentionally deserted him. He was always ready and willing to take the Respondents back. The same were not only false, but also concocted. It was averred that he had lot of love and affection for his wife and children, had spent huge money for their betterment and also during pregnancy of Respondent No. 1, but Respondent No. 1 intentionally deserted him. He was always ready and willing to take the Respondents back. According to the Appellant, under such circumstances, the Respondents are not entitled to any maintenance. 4. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed three issues. In order to substantiate their case Respondent No. 1- wife got one witness-namely as P.W.1 examined. On behalf of the Appellant-husband no witness was examined. After discussing the evidence and other materials and considering the earning capacity of the Appellant-husband, the Judge, Family Court allowed the petition and directed the Appellant-husband to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to Respondent No. 1 wife and Rs. 1,000/- each to Respondents 2 and 3 (son and daughter) towards their maintenance besides Rs. 1,000/- per month towards house rent. The said order as stated earlier is assailed before this Court. 5. In course of hearing, considering the age of the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 as well as the age of the minor children, as an effort of reunion, this Court directed both the parties to appear before this Court in person. In compliance with the said direction both the Appellant-husband and Respondent No. 1-wife appeared today before this Court. We have heard the parties in person. In course of hearing Respondent No. 1-wife alleging that in the meanwhile the Appellant-husband has kept a mistress stated that it is not possible for her to share the same house with another woman. She prayed to dissolve the marriage and award suitable permanent alimony for her and children. She has filed an affidavit to that effect. The Appellant-husband though denied the allegation that he has kept a mistress, submitted that considering the attitude of Respondent No. 1-wife, it is no more possible for him to continue family life with her. In spite of best persuasion of Court, both the parties are firm in their submissions that they are no longer interested to resume the family life. The Appellant-husband though denied the allegation that he has kept a mistress, submitted that considering the attitude of Respondent No. 1-wife, it is no more possible for him to continue family life with her. In spite of best persuasion of Court, both the parties are firm in their submissions that they are no longer interested to resume the family life. Learned Counsel for both the parties fairly submitted that there is a fall out for a considerably long time and as the mentality of the man and woman is not matching it would not be proper in their interest to resume the marital tie and it is a fit case where the principles of irreparable break down of marriage should be presumed. In course of hearing both husband and wife have filed two affidavits agreeing to settle the dispute on payment of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs) by the Appellant-husband to Respondents as permanent alimony. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation any further and it would be more appropriate to direct dissolution of the marriage subject to payment of Rs. 8,00,000/- (rupees eight lakhs) as permanent alimony by the Appellant-husband to Respondent No. 1-wife and two children and we direct accordingly. It is made clear that if any amount towards interim maintenance has remained unpaid, the Appellant-husband shall also deposit the same apart of Rs. 8,00,000/- within a period of two months hence. With the aforesaid direction, the MATA is disposed of. B.P. Ray, J. 10. I agree.