Judgment L. MOHAPATRA, J. :- The aforesaid two appeals are directed against a common judgment and order of the learned Judge, Family Court. Cuttack in Civil Proceeding in No. 315 of 2002 and Criminal Proceeding No. 213 of 2004 disposed of in a common judgment dated 24-2-2006. 2. The appellant in MATA No.6 of 2006 is the husband (Susanta) and the appellant in MATA No. 30 of 2006 is the wife (Subhrasubala). The husband had filed Civil Proceeding No. 315 of 2002 for dissolution of marriage and other reliefs whereas the ~ wife had filed Criminal Proceeding No. 213 o of 2004 claiming maintenance for herself and for her minor daughter. The learned Judge, Family Court in the impugned judgment passed a decree for dissolution of marriage subject to payment of Rs. 1.50.000/- to the wife towards maintenance of the mi.2 nor daughter as well as permanent alimony. - Challenging the decree of dissolution of marriage, the wife has filed MATA No.6 of 2006 and the husband has filed MATA No. 30 of 2006 challenging the grant of permanent alimony of Rs. 1,50,000/- and non-grant of compensation claimed by him in the Civil Proceeding for dissolution of marriage. 3. The case of the husband in the civil proceeding is that the marriage took place on 29-2-2001 and in the same night both he and wife came to his house at Kashipur. On the next day the wife showed abnormal activity and also disclosed about her relationship with some one at Banki and because of such behaviour of the wife, the situation became tense and the husband advised her to behave like a daughter-in-law. However, she reacted and assaulted him causing bleeding injures as a result of which, her father was intimated to come. Her father reached the house of the husband at 1.30 p.m. on 1 st March, 2001 and took away his daughter (wife) to Banki. Subsequently, the husband was requested by his father-in-law to come to Banki and stay with his wife as a domesticated son-in-law, which the husband did not oblige. On 9-3-2001 the father-in-law of the husband came along with his daughter and requested the husband to stay at Banki as domesticated son-in-law, which was again refused, by the husband. Subsequently, the husband was requested by his father-in-law to come to Banki and stay with his wife as a domesticated son-in-law, which the husband did not oblige. On 9-3-2001 the father-in-law of the husband came along with his daughter and requested the husband to stay at Banki as domesticated son-in-law, which was again refused, by the husband. Thereafter, the wife threatened her husband and praised her Senior, Sub ash Mishra with whom she had love affairs and also disclosed that her senior is a conspirator in a murder case who can smash the husband. Thereafter, the wife left the matrimonial home along with her belongings and declared that she would divorce the appellant-husband. When she did not return to the matrimonial home for a period of four months, a telegram was sent to the family of the wife to close the chapter and take away the left over articles where after the father of the wife came and took away the left over articles. In March, 2001 the husband came to Cuttack and started his practice in the High Court and while at Cuttack he informed his wife to resume the marital life but the wife refused. Subsequently, the husband came to know that his wife has delivered a child in S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack in November, 2001. Considering the conduct of the wife, the husband had no other option except filing the civil proceeding for divorce and also claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The wife in turn filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and the minor daughter. Her case is that after marriage she stayed in the matrimonial home at Kashipur for one month where-after she shifted to Cuttack and stayed at Arundoya Nagar. On 5-4-2001 she, her husband and the family members of the husband came to a rented house where-after she was subjected to cruelty in relation to further demand of dowry. It is also the allegation of the wife that on one occasion she was strangulated by her husband and she was rescued by the villagers and that on 24-4-2001 her brother-in-law misbehaved with her and took away her gold ornaments and forced her to leave the matrimonial home and practically she was driven out from the matrimonial home. According to her, her husband is earning Rs. According to her, her husband is earning Rs. 10,000/- from profession and her father-in-law is also an Advocate who has some income from the profession apart from his monthly income as retired Government servant. On the above allegations, she claimed maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- for herself and a sum of Rs. 1.000/- for the minor child. The learned Judge, Court allowed the prayer for dissolution of marriage, granted permanent alimony of Rs.1,50.000/- to the wife and the minor child but did not pass any decree so far as damage claimed by the husband is concerned. Therefore, two appeals have been filed before this Court, one by the wife challenging the decree of dissolution of marriage and the other by the husband challenging the permanent alimony as well as non-grant of damages. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the husband contended that after marriage the parties had stayed for one day. According to him, though the marriage took place on 28th February, 2001, the wife left the matrimonial home on 1st March, 2001 and, therefore, they stayed together for few hours and the marriage having not been consummated, it cannot be said that the child born to the wife is that of the appellant. It was also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the husband that the wife had an affair with her senior at Banki, which she openly disclosed immediately after the marriage, and such fact was suppressed by the family members of the wife. The marriage having come to an end and, since he was not made aware of such fact, .the husband was entitled to damages and no alimony could have been granted for the minor child. The learned counsel appearing for the wife contended that' she stayed with her husband for almost a month and after they shifted to a rented house. there was demand of further dowry and for non-fulfilment of the said demand. she was subjected to torture and cruelty and was .practically driven out from the house. Having stayed with her husband for a month, she conceived and a child was born to them and. Therefore, not only she but also the child are entitled to permanent alimony. there was demand of further dowry and for non-fulfilment of the said demand. she was subjected to torture and cruelty and was .practically driven out from the house. Having stayed with her husband for a month, she conceived and a child was born to them and. Therefore, not only she but also the child are entitled to permanent alimony. It was also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the wife that she is ever willing to stay with her husband but she having been driven out from house for non-fulfilment of dowry demand, no decree for dissolution of marriage could have been passed. 5. We have carefully gone through the evidence adduced before the learned Judge. Family Court, the documents produced before the said Court and the discussions made by the learned Judge in the impugned judgment. Seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the husband whereas five witnesses were examined on behalf of the wife. P.W. 1 is the husband himself. He has stated that he married Subhransubala Mishra (wife) on 28-2-2001 and at the time of marriage no dowry was given from the side of the wife nor there was any demand from their side. After the marriage in the same night both of them went to their house at Kashipur. On the next day itself his wife boasted about her higher education and branded• him as a briefless lawyer having no income and also disclosed that her lover is at Banki. This fact was intimated to her father who came to Kashipur in the same day and took her away with assurance to leave her in the matrimonial home saying that she had got some psychiatric problem. He was further stated that the marriage was never consummated, as his wife did not come to their house thereafter. He has also stated that he was requested to stay in the house off at her-in-law as domesticated son-in-law, which he did not oblige. This witness has stated that while he was practising at Cuttack and stayed in a rented house, she came with her senior Subash Mishra and some others and asked him to stay at Banki, but he refused. Thereafter she declared to divorce him. In cross-examination he has admitted that he came to know his wife in January or February. 2000 when he started practice at Khurda where his wife was also practising coming from Banki. Thereafter she declared to divorce him. In cross-examination he has admitted that he came to know his wife in January or February. 2000 when he started practice at Khurda where his wife was also practising coming from Banki. Till their marriage the love affair continued but he could not know the details of his wife within thirteen months during which he continued the love affair with his wife. He has also stated that his wife was also practising at Banki Court and she was junior to one Advocate Subash Mishra at Banki. He never noticed any psychiatric derailment of his wife while mixing with her prior to their marriage. However, in cross-examination he was also given some instances of misbehaviour on the part of his wife. P.W. 2 is the Karta of the marriage. This witness has also admitted that the parties were in love two years prior to their marriage. The husband was practising as an Advocate at Khurda whereas the wife was very often going to Khurda as an advocate though she was practising at Banki and in Khurda they came to know each other and the love developed between them. Though the marriage took place on 28-2-2001, according to this witness, on the next day morning at about 9 a.m. the wife disclosed her intention not to stay any more in the matrimonial home complaining that her husband has no income whereas her income was Rs. 4,000/- per month. P.W. 3 is the Purohit in the marriage whose evidence is not material for the purpose of the case. P.W. 4 is a friend of the wife who has also stated about the love affair between the husband and the wife prior to marriage. She has stated that there was no giving of any dowry articles and only some gold and silver ornaments were presented to the bride on the alter. She has also stated that on 1st March, 2001 the wife was brought back to her father's house and that the husband was requested to stay in Banki as domesticated son-in-law. This witness has further stated that intention of the wife to come back from her matrimonial home immediately after the marriage was to legalise her conception, which was prior to the marriage. This witness has further stated that intention of the wife to come back from her matrimonial home immediately after the marriage was to legalise her conception, which was prior to the marriage. P.W. 5 has stated that fifteen days after the husband took the house of her uncle on rent, his wife came to the said house in a Marutivan with three gentlemen and another lady and they shouted and quarreled with the husband. P.W. 6 is another witness who had attended the marriage and heard the gossip of the people at the time of marriage that the wife was a kept of one Subash Mishra. He has also stated that on the next day when he was going on the village road of Kashipur, he heard hullah in the house of -the groom and entered inside and heard that the bride was saying to go away to her father's house since the husband was an idiot and she had good earning at Banki. He also heard the bride disclosing that she was pregnant through Subash Mishra and was unwilling to stay with her husband. P.W. 7 is a witness who had produced the Admission Register of the Labour Room of O.G. Department of the hospital. which show that the wife had given birth to a female child. O.P.W. 1 is the wife who has stated about the marriage and giving of dowry. She has also stated about demand of more dowry and assault on her for non-fulfilment of dowry demand. She had stoutly denied her relationship with the said Subash Mishra and the suggestion that the marriage was not consummated. In cross-examination she has admitted that she was attached to the office of Subash Mishra to whom she pays regard just like her father. She has also stated that she was asked to leave the office in 2002 because of such allegation made by her husband. She has also stated that she remained in her matrimonial home till last part of March, 200 I and had conceived in the matrimonial home. O.P.W. 2 is the father of the wife who has also stated about further demand of dowry, which he heard from his daughter. The evidence of O.P.W. 3 is not material except to the extent that she is witness to the marriage. O.P.W. 4 is also a witness to the marriage. O.P.W. 2 is the father of the wife who has also stated about further demand of dowry, which he heard from his daughter. The evidence of O.P.W. 3 is not material except to the extent that she is witness to the marriage. O.P.W. 4 is also a witness to the marriage. O.P.W. 5 has also stated to have seen both the parties in the rented house at Cuttack. 6. On analysis of the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that the marriage is admitted between the parties. It is also admitted by the husband that he had developed affairs with the wife prior to marriage for a period of more than one year. The only dispute between the parties is as to whether the wife stayed in the matrimonial home for few hours as alleged by her husband or she stayed with her husband for a month before leaving the matrimonial house. Though it is stated by the witnesses examined on behalf of the husband that she left the matrimonial home on 1st March, 2001 i.e. the day after the marriage took place. it appears from the evidence of O.P.W. 1 that she stayed in the matrimonial home for a month i.e. till the end of March. Though the husband stated that the marriage had never consummated, the wife denied such a suggestion but the admitted fact is that a child was born to her in the same year in the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital at Cuttack. 7. On detail analysis of the evidence on record. we find that there is evidence to show that the marriage took place on 28th February. 2001 and the wife left the matrimonial house on 1st March. 2001 with her father. The evidence of O.P.W. 1 shows that both of them stayed together at Cuttack in a rented house for few days where-after towards end of March. 2001 the wife left the matrimonial home. Therefore. the possibility of a conception during such stay cannot be ruled out. The reasons for living separately appears to be for multiple reasons proved by both the sides. From the husband side though it is proved that the wife was not behaving properly, it is also proved from the side of the wife that there was demand of dowry and she was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfilment of dowry. The reasons for living separately appears to be for multiple reasons proved by both the sides. From the husband side though it is proved that the wife was not behaving properly, it is also proved from the side of the wife that there was demand of dowry and she was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfilment of dowry. In view of such reasons, we are of the view that there being no possibility of staying together and the parties having stayed together few days after the marriage, the trial Court was justified in granting a decree for dissolution of marriage. Admittedly the marriage had taken place and there being evidence to show that both the parties stayed together for some days after the marriage and in view of our finding that the possibility of a conception during such stay cannot be ruled out, the trial Court was also justified in granting permanent alimony for the wife and the child. It is true that the wife is a practising advocate and must be having some earning, but a sum of Rs. 1.50.000/- towards permanent alimony for a girl child is not a very unreasonable amount which should be interfered with. 8. So far as non-grant of damages is concerned, we find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the husband. It is admitted by the husband that he had affairs with his wife at least for a period of thirteen months prior to marriage and being conscious of her character and nature, he decide'f1 to marry her and therefore, the question of damage does not arise. Unfortunately the marriage did not succeed but the admitted fact being both of them had an affair at least for a period of one year prior to marriage and having taken a decision consciously to get married, the learned Judge. Family Court was justified in not granting damages as claimed by the husband. 9. In view of the discussions made above, we do not find any merit in either of the appeals and accordingly both the appeals are dismissed. 10. I agree. Appeal dismissed.