Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 682 (ORI)

PRIYAMBADA PANI @ PANI v. SAROJ KUMAR PANI

2008-08-08

I.MAHANTY, L.MOHAPATRA

body2008
JUDGMENT : Indrajit Mahanty, J. - These two connected civil appeals arise out of a common Judgment dated 20.9.2001 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack disposing of Civil Proceeding No. 176 of 1998 filed by Sri Saroj Kumar Pani u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to dissolve the marriage by decree for divorce on the ground of unsound-mind of the wife-Respondent No. 1-Smt. Priyambada Pani as well as Civil Proceeding No. 366 of 1998 filed by Smt. Priyambanda Pani and her minor daughter Kumari Subhshri Pani-Petitioners under Sections 18 & 20 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 seeking maintenance. 2. Both the aforesaid proceeding were disposed of by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack by a common Judgment dated 20.9.2001 by issuing a decree for divorce Subject to payment of Rs. 1,25,000/- to the wife towards permanent alimony and a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards maintenance of the minor daughter-Subhashri Pani. In Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2001 Smt. Priyambada Pani has sought to challenge both the decrees for divorce as well as for enhancement of maintenance. In Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2001 Sri Saroj Kumar Pani (Husband) has sought to challenge the quantum of maintenance directed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. 3. Mr. R.C. Das, learned Counsel appearing for Appellant Smt. Priyambada Pani @ Rout in C.A. No. 36 of 2001 submitted that learned Judge, Family Court has committed gross error of law by placing reliance on the medical opinion of the Psychiatrists without putting their opinion to rigorous test and thereby failed to have an independent Judgment on the contentious issue of the alleged insanity of the Appellant. Therefore, he contends that there is no conclusive material on record to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant-Priyambada was suffering from mental disorder of Schizophrenia, which was incurable and that the mental disorder was of such an extent that the husband and wife could not lead a normal conjugal life together. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Priyambada further submitted that mere opinion of the doctors that the Appellant had positive signs of aggressiveness, arrogance, excitement and assaultiveness without assigning any positive reasons these cannot lead to a safe conclusion that the Appellant suffers from Schizophrenia of an incurable form. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Priyambada further submitted that mere opinion of the doctors that the Appellant had positive signs of aggressiveness, arrogance, excitement and assaultiveness without assigning any positive reasons these cannot lead to a safe conclusion that the Appellant suffers from Schizophrenia of an incurable form. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that before marriage took place, in-laws saw her, interacted with her and ultimately choose her as bride and after marriage, there was normal sexual relationship between the husband and wife leading to birth of a female child who was brought up by her mother with due care. It is alleged that the Judge, Family Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the admitted evidence and came to a presumptive conclusion that she (Priyambada) was suffering from acute incurable form of Schizophrenia making her unfit to leave a conjugal life. Further plea was raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the Appellant was subjected to mental and physical torture by the husband and his family members and she was administered medicines brought by them. It is further submitted that expression "incurably of unsound mind" means "incapable of managing herself and her affairs including the problems of society and married life" and if the said test is applied to the facts of the present case, it is submitted that the alleged mental disorder of the Appellant has not been proved to be of such a nature as to make her incapable of managing herself and her affairs including the problem of society and of the marriage life. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for Saroj Kumar Pani-Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2001 on the other hand supported the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court directing the issue of decree of divorce and submitted that Smt. Priyambada Pani was suffering from a violent form of insanity and having no capacity to rear the child for which reason although the child Subhashri Pani was residing with her mother initially, the in-laws considering the future and safety of the child during the pendency of the suit, have handed back the custody of the daughter to the father of Saroj Kumar Pani and the daughter remains in the custody of her father and presently prosecuting her education at Bhubaneswar. Learned Counsel further submitted that the child was also suffering from similar psychiatric problem for which, the father is taking necessary steps to have it medically dealt with. Learned Counsel for the husband-Saroj Kumar Pani further submitted that although he had opened a Motor parts shop by taking loan from the Bank and from the relatives and welt wishers, but his business could not run well for which he was unable to clear up the loan dues for which the said business has been closed. He further submitted that even when the business was running, he was getting profit from the said business of Rs. 700 to 800/- per month and therefore, the direction of the learned Judge, Family Court to pay an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- to the wife-Priyambada Pani towards her permanent alimony and a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards the maintenance of the minor daughter is beyond his financial means. Learned Counsel further submitted that the learned trial Court without analyzing the evidence erroneously arrived at a conclusion and quantified maintenance/permanent alimony in a mechanical manner. Learned Counsel further submitted that the learned trial Court without taking of any evidence independently in the proceeding instituted by Smt. Priyambada Pani u/s 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 had erroneously declared Priyambada Pani as guardian of Respondent No. 2. Subhashri Pani daughter. In this respect learned Counsel submitted that the served principle of law regarding welfare of the child is paramount consideration for delivering custody of a minor child and in the instant case since the mother Respondent No. 1 was suffering from violent intermittent recurrent attacks of insanity it cannot be safe or of paramount interest of the child to be given in custody to the mother. 5. In the light of the aforesaid contention as noted hereinabove) the following issues are raised for consideration in the present appeals. (a) Whether adequate evidence exists on record to establish that Smt. Priyambada Pani was unsound mind (Schizophrenia) renders incapable of managing herself and her affairs including the problems of society and of married life? (b) As to whether the custody of the minor child is to be given in favour of the husband-Saroj Kumar Pani or wife-Priyambada Pani as directed by the trial Court? (b) As to whether the custody of the minor child is to be given in favour of the husband-Saroj Kumar Pani or wife-Priyambada Pani as directed by the trial Court? (c) Whether the amount of alimony/maintenance awarded by the trial Court is justified in the fact and law of the present case? So far as the first issue of alleged Schizophrenia or unsound of mind of Smt. Priyambada Pani is concerned in course of proceeding Appellant-Petitioner's husband had examined six witnesses and exhibited nine documents on his behalf, where as the Respondent (Priyambada Pani) examined five witnesses and also exhibited three documents on her behalf. 6. At this stage it becomes important to take note of the evidence of the doctors examined in course of trial. P.W.1 who was Dr. Soumyakanta Das in his evidence stated that he is an expert in treating Psychiatries ailments since 1983 and possessed master degree (M.D.) since 1983. He has stated that he was served as Medical Officer in the Central Reserve Police Force with headquarters at Delhi and worked in various places of the country before taking voluntarily retirement in the year 1994 and continues his private practice at Bhubaneswar. In his evidence he has stated that he recognized the Respondent (wife) who was treated by him from 8.10.1995 to 22.3.1996. It may be mentioned here that the marriage between the parties took place on 7.7.1995 that essentially proves that after a period of three months Respondent-wife treatment was taken up by Dr. Soumyakanta Das. He has stated that Respondent was a psychiatric patient and that he had given various prescriptions in her favour during her treatment. Exhibit-1 series are the prescriptions, which indicate different types of treatments rendered to the Respondent. He has also proved the fact that the ETC Register was maintained by the clinic during the said period, which is marked as Exhibit-2. According to the doctor the Respondent was suffering from Schizophrenia disorder and he has also taken note of the history of the case including the fact that the mother of the Respondent who was also suffering from aforesaid disease. According to the doctor the Respondent was suffering from Schizophrenia disorder and he has also taken note of the history of the case including the fact that the mother of the Respondent who was also suffering from aforesaid disease. He asserts that the Respondent was suffering from an acute form of Schizophrenia for which it was necessary to give her ECT (Electro Convulsive Therapy) and the father of the Respondent had submitted his undertaking prior to treating the Respondent and the said undertaking was marked as Exhibit-3 to the proceeding. He further states that the Respondent had positive signs of excitement, assaultive, aggressive, arrogant etc. and other tendency. 7. In his cross-examination he has, stated that the disease, which the Respondent was suffering, is curable for a particular period, if the patient remains under a constant treatment and in so far as a cerebral seizure is concerned, if constant treatment is given the patient remains in proper position. But the doctor opined that the present case was not a case of cerebral seizure. 8. One Dr. Bimala Ch. Harichandan was examined as P.W.2 and states that he had been working as Psychiatric Specialist in the Capital hospital (Govt, hospital) at Bhubaneswar since 1991 and had rendered treatment to Priyambada from 13.4.1996 to 6.10.1996 and various prescriptions had been given by him which were marked as Exhibit-4 series and Priyambada is a psychiatric patient. He also claims that in course of the treatment of Priyambada he had collected the history of the family of the Respondent and was of the view that the disease suffered by her was in an acute stage. He also states that the disease from which the Respondent was suffering and affected is not curable and that he had noticed during treatment arrogant, excitement, assaultive, aggressive and other tendency of the patient. He further states that the Respondent was present in the Court appeared to be in a normal state from her appearance and she might be under influence of drugs. More importantly he asserts that the father of the Respondent Priyambad Pani used to bring her for her treatment from time to time and Exhibit-4 is the prescription granted by him confirmed that her father had accompanied the patient. This witness was treating the Respondent before her marriage. 9. Dr. Gopal Chandra Kar is the third doctor examined by the trial Court as P.W.3. This witness was treating the Respondent before her marriage. 9. Dr. Gopal Chandra Kar is the third doctor examined by the trial Court as P.W.3. The said witness asserts that the Respondent was suffering from Epileptic Psychosis and she was under his treatment from 5.11.1996 to 26.9.1997. Exhibit-5 was the medical certificate granted by him. To a question put by the trial Court, the witness has stated that the disease on the Respondent is not curable. 10. P.W. 4 Satyananda Pani, father of Saroj Kumar Pani states that Priyambada Pani was suffering from Schizophrenia had been concealed by the parents of the Respondent for the purpose of marriage to his son. Though Dr. Das gave medicines to cure the Respondent, yet she was not cured. When the disease of insanity grew up the father of Priyambada was informed and he came and took her for her treatment to Dr. Bimal Chandra Harichandan under whom she was treated prior to the marriage and since she was not cured he also got the Respondent treated under Dr. Gopal Kar who was attached to SCB Medical College & Hospital and though she was admitted as an indoor patient, yet, her father took her away from the hospital by giving an undertaking. He asserts that out of the wedlock a female child was born to Priyambada on 30.6.1996 and while the Respondent failed to take care of the child, she tried to kill her by pressing her neck. He further states that the father of the Respondent Priyambada had threatened him with dire consequence and also wrote a letter to him under Exhibit-6. 11. P.W.5 is Saroj Kumar Pani and in his evidence he has stated that after marriage he led a normal marital life with his wife for a period three months and after marriage the Respondent became very cynic and suspected not only to Saroj Kumar, but also each of his family members and behaved with them in an abnormal and unusual manner, abused them in filthy languages and also assaulted his family members. He further states that the Respondent became naked and ran hither and thither, from which they understood that she was suffering from insanity and lost her balance of mind. He also alleges that the Respondent secretly took medicines, which he had brought, from her father's house at the time of marriage. He further states that the Respondent became naked and ran hither and thither, from which they understood that she was suffering from insanity and lost her balance of mind. He also alleges that the Respondent secretly took medicines, which he had brought, from her father's house at the time of marriage. He further states that he got the Respondent treated by a psychiatric specialist (P.W.2) on 18.10.1995, and in spite of his best effort she was not cured. He also states that he took the help of his father-in-law for treating the Respondent under the Dr. Bimal Ch. Harichandan and after remaining for one month in her house she went to her father-in-law's house. He states that the Respondent was given electric shock by Dr. S.K. Das (P.W.1), but she was not cured. After a female child was born out of the wedlock the Respondent attempted to take life of the child and also attempted to commit suicide. He further states that he got the Respondent treated under Dr. Gopal Kar in S.C.8. Medical College & Hospital and he was advised to get the Respondent admitted in the hospital. Though she was admitted in the hospital, but his father-in-law by giving an undertaking took away the Respondent to his house and since then, i.e., from 31.10.1997 she has not returned to her marital house and since then she was staying at her father's house. In this respect the witness produced Exhibit-7, the letter given by his father-in-law dated 10.2.96 and Exhibit-8 series are the prescriptions issued by the doctor of S.C.B. Medical "College & Hospital and Exhibit-9 is the undertaking given by the father of the Respondent while taking the child Subhashri Pani. Apart from this Narahari Mahakuda has been examined as P.W.6 who claims to have stayed in the house of Satyananda Pani (father of the Petitioner) as tenant. He states that he had at times seen the Respondent (wife of the Petitioner) became naked and ran from place to place and behaved in a rude and obnoxious manner with Saroj Kr. Pani and his family members. 12. The Respondent on the other hand examined one Susanta Kumar Das as D.W.1 who was working as a peon in the Secretariate where the father of the Respondent was working as Section Officer in the Finance Department and he was well acquainted with the family members of Priyambada. Pani and his family members. 12. The Respondent on the other hand examined one Susanta Kumar Das as D.W.1 who was working as a peon in the Secretariate where the father of the Respondent was working as Section Officer in the Finance Department and he was well acquainted with the family members of Priyambada. He asserts that he was present at the time of" marriage and the marriage took place in July, 1995 and the couple had led their normal marital life till October, 1997 and out of their wedlock a female child was born in the month of October, 1996. He claims that he did not know about the affairs of the parties. In the year 1998 he became aware of the dispute between the parties when the matter was referred to Mahila Commission. 13. The next witness Rabindranath Rout examined as D.W.2, father of the Respondent-Priyambada. He also asserts that the marriage took place on 7.7.1995 and after the marriage parities led their normal marital life for a period of four months and out of their wedlock a female child was born in 1996 at Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar. He states that at the time of marriage he had spent Rs. 2,50,000/- and also given cash dowry of Rs. 50,000/- to the Petitioner. Apart from this he had given other articles such as Almirah, Sofa set, Cot, Furniture, Utensils and other household articles costing of Rs. 60,000/-. He also states that he has incurred expenditure of Rs. 35, 000/- towards marriage dinner and also given seven tolas of gold ornaments as per the custom. He alleges that his daughter Priyambada was subjected to torture and physical cruelty and she was tied in the leg of the cot by the younger brother of the Petitioner as per the direction of the father of the Petitioner and that such incident was happened because his daughter insisted to come his house. It is further stated that the younger brother of the Petitioner left his daughter when she was pregnancy. He states that after birth of the female child on 30.6.1996 there was conciliation took place between the parties and then his daughter remained in her marital home for a period of six months. During this period when he visited to his daughter, he noticed that his daughter was in pensive mood with grief and sorrow. He states that after birth of the female child on 30.6.1996 there was conciliation took place between the parties and then his daughter remained in her marital home for a period of six months. During this period when he visited to his daughter, he noticed that his daughter was in pensive mood with grief and sorrow. Having no other alternative at that time in February 1998 he brought his daughter with her child to his house and from which date they were residing with him. 14. Most importantly D.W.2 states that it is false to say that his daughter was suffering from insanity prior to or after the marriage. He also denies that the Petitioner had undertaken the task of treatment of his daughter on account of insanity and also denies to have written any letter to his daughter or to the Petitioner. The said witness further denies knowing Dr. Soumyakanta Das nor admits the treatment of his daughter under him. He also denies Exhibit-3 and states that he has never given his consent to give electric shock to his daughter. So far as the allegation of his daughter that she was tied in one of the legs of the cot by the younger brother of the Petitioner as per the direction of his father. He claims to have only heard about it. He also denies that the treatment of his daughter by Dr. Bimala Chandra Harichandan, Psychiatric Specialist in the Capital Hospital and also denies that his daughter was admitted in the SCB Medical College & Hospital for treatment under Dr. Gopal Ch.Kar, Psychiatric Specialist. 15. The next witness Priyabrata Rout examined as D.W.3 who witnessed the solemnize marriage of Priyambada Pani with Saroj Kumar Pani states that after spending a period of three months in her marital home she came away to her father's house. D.W.3 further states that while Priyambada was residing in the marital house she had written letters to him relating to demand of dowry of Rs. 20,000/- and torture on her. The said letter has been marked as Exhibit-A. He further states that Rs. 50,000/- was paid in cash apart from gold ornaments and other articles to the Petitioner. D.W.3 further states that while Priyambada was residing in the marital house she had written letters to him relating to demand of dowry of Rs. 20,000/- and torture on her. The said letter has been marked as Exhibit-A. He further states that Rs. 50,000/- was paid in cash apart from gold ornaments and other articles to the Petitioner. In his cross-examination he states that he does not know whether the letter under Exhibits-A to A/2 were filed at the time of filing of written statement and he further asserts that he had gone through the contents of the written statement filed by his sister in the divorce proceeding since he was looking after the case on behalf of his sister. The said witness also denies that his sister is suffering from any mental disease in any manner or is abnormal. He further denies that his sister never treated by any of the doctors. 16. D.W. 4 Suryanarayan Das, who is the nephew of Rabindranath Rout father of Priyambada states that Priyambada has been residing in her paternal house since 1998 and on being asked why she has been staying in her father's house, she told him that she was tortured in the matrimonial house. 17. Priyambada Pani herself examined as D.W.5 and asserts that marriage took place, on 7.7.1995 with Saroj Kumar Pani. When the proposal stated for marriage the parents of Saroj and Saroj himself came to see him prior to his marriage. Her father gave some amount of cash and articles to his husband. She denies that her mother suffered from any mental disease and she specifically denies ever having been treated by Dr. Saumyakanta Das before her marriage. She asserts that she had normal sexual relationship with her husband after her marriage for which a daughter namely, Subhashri was born. She categorically denies ever having been treated either by Dr. Bimal Chandra Harichandan or Dr. Gopal Chandra Kar. She also asserts that while she was in the matrimonial home, the members of the family of Saroj gave some medicines to her, but she did not take them. She also denies that she was not Caring the father, mother and other family members of Saroj Kumar or abused in any manner as alleged against her. Gopal Chandra Kar. She also asserts that while she was in the matrimonial home, the members of the family of Saroj gave some medicines to her, but she did not take them. She also denies that she was not Caring the father, mother and other family members of Saroj Kumar or abused in any manner as alleged against her. She further states that she could not stay beyond July 1998 in her matrimonial house due to assault by her husband and his parents. She further states that her husband was operating a Motor parts shop at Bhubaneswar and earning a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month. She further states that her husband has two Ambassador Cars and the father of the husband was working as an Excise Inspector. She also asserts that Gourinagar House belongs to in-laws. She further states that she came to her father's house for the reason that her husband and his parents demanded Rs. 20,000/- from her father and her father had only paid Rs. 7,000/-and' could not pay the balance amount for which she was ill-treated and tortured. She also asserts that she has no independent income and her father looking after all the expenses of her and her daughter. In the cross-examination she has categorically stated that she has not filed any FIR before the police authority alleging torture or assault by her husband or father-in-law. But she also denies ever having been treated by Dr.Saumyakanta Das or Dr. Bimala Chandra Harichandan or Dr. Gopal Chandra Kar. She further admits that she has not reduced in the written statement that her father-in-law or husband assaulted her. 18. In the light of the aforesaid evidence it is seen that Ext. 1 is a prescription dated 18.10.1995 issued by Dr. Saumyakanta Das which notes symptoms of Schizophrenia, i.e., irritability of suspiciousness, hearing voices, fear and headache. The said prescription contains an endorsement dated 24.10.1995 which indicates that the patient had not taken her medicines. Same patient was again treated on 27.10.1995 and 15.12.1995, which indicates that the patient has been irregular in taking her medicines and in the meanwhile she has become pregnant. Endorsement dated 19.1.1996 indicates that the patient had again stopped the medicines on the advice of Gynecologist and now giggling and her suspiciousness are also grown up. Exhibit-1/a is the prescription of Dr. Endorsement dated 19.1.1996 indicates that the patient had again stopped the medicines on the advice of Gynecologist and now giggling and her suspiciousness are also grown up. Exhibit-1/a is the prescription of Dr. Saumyakanta Das dated 20.1.1996, which indicates that there has been aggravation of symptom regarding anger, suspicious etc., which is followed up by an endorsement dated 16.2.1996 which indicates aggravation that she had became very demanding in character, angry, talks in derogatory terms about father-in-law and is demonstrative and suspicious. The said prescription indicates various stages of her treatment at times she is shown to respond while under treatment and thereafter her symptoms have shown further cietoriation. In the prescription dated 18.2.1996 under Ext. 1/5, Dr. Saumyakanta Das notes that she is a known case of Schizophrenia disorder and also notes the family history of Schizophrenia exists in her mother (mother of Priyambada). He further notes that the patient did not accept the oral medication for which she was given ETC (1)(Two years back). Exhibit-3 is an under-taking filed by Rabindranath Rout dated 18.2.1996 given to Dr. Saumyakanta Das in which he had given consent for ECT treatment of his daughter. Exhibit-4 series are prescriptions for treatment of Priyambada given by various doctors. Exhibit-5 is an Out-Patient Card given by Mental Health Institute, SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack, which contains the history of the patient and also noted the fact that patient earlier attempted her suicide twice and as staying away from her matrimonial house along with her child and her husband was keeping harmonious relationship. This outpatient card followed up treatment on 13.3.1997 and on 26.3.1997 and she was advised as all indoor patient for which a female attendant was required. The patient was taken back to home by her father by giving an undertaking in the bed head ticket of the patient. Exhibit-6 is a hand written letter by Rabindranath Rout, father of Priyambada confirming the treatment given by Dr. Saumyakanta Das and Dr. Bimala Chandra Harichandan. 19. The aforesaid evidence both oral and documentary conclusively goes to show that Priyambada has been suffering from Schizophrenia since 13.4.1994 i.e, much prior to her marriage from which date she was treated by Dr. Bimala Chandra Harichandan. Dr. Saumyakanta Das in his evidence has stated that he has treated Priyambada from 8.10.1995 to 22.3.1996 and Dr. Bimala Chandra Harichandan. 19. The aforesaid evidence both oral and documentary conclusively goes to show that Priyambada has been suffering from Schizophrenia since 13.4.1994 i.e, much prior to her marriage from which date she was treated by Dr. Bimala Chandra Harichandan. Dr. Saumyakanta Das in his evidence has stated that he has treated Priyambada from 8.10.1995 to 22.3.1996 and Dr. Gopal Chandra Kar in his evidence stated that Priyambada was under his treatment from 5.11.1996 to 26.9.1997. From the aforesaid evidence of these three doctors, it is ascertained that from 13.4.1994 to 26.9.1997 Priyambada was suffering from Schizophrenia and various' Psychiatrists have treated her from time to time. From the oral and documentary evidence (Prescriptions and medical report) it is clear and confirms the fact of her ailment. Dr. Saumyakanta Das confirmed the fact that Priyambada is Schizophrenia disorder, which has resulted excitement, assaultive, aggressive, arrogant and other tendency and Dr. Bimala Chandra Harichandan has also corroborated this fact. Dr. Gopal Chandra Kar has stated that the patient was suffering from Epileptic Psychosis and was not curable. 20. In the light of the aforesaid specific evidence of the doctors who are Psychiatric Specialists and in view of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant Priyambada on this issue her denial cannot be accepted and we are of the view that in view of the evidence given by the Specialists, Priyambada is suffering from Schizophrenia and Epileptic Psychosis of an incurable nature and thereby is not able to manage herself and her affairs including the problems of society and of marital life. 21. So far as issue of custody of Subhashri is concerned, although the custody of the child had been granted to her mother Priyambada in the impugned Judgment. It appears that Priyambada's father took his daughter in custody during the pendency of the proceeding before the Mahila Commission. It is stated by the learned Counsel appearing for Saroj Kumar Pani that the custody of the child has been handed over to Saroj Kumar Pani and the child is now prosecuting her education at Bhubaneswar. The learned Counsel appearing for Priyambada Pani also admits this fact. Learned Counsel appearing for Saroj Kumar Pani submitted that the child was also suffering from mild Schizophrenia and is also under the treatment. The learned Counsel appearing for Priyambada Pani also admits this fact. Learned Counsel appearing for Saroj Kumar Pani submitted that the child was also suffering from mild Schizophrenia and is also under the treatment. Considering the aforesaid fact and the continuing illness of Priyambada and further considering the fact that the father of Priyambada has been retired from the Government service, we are of the view that interest of child will be best served, if the custody of the child is granted to his father-Saroj Kumar Pani who shall be responsible to look after the child. We make it further clear that Priyambada Pani shall have visitation right and right to take her child for one month in the summer vacation and necessary arrangements may be reached between parties so the best interest of child will be served. In order to further continue of her education and future of the child Subhashri, Saroj Kumar Pani is directed to make a deposit of Rs. 75,000/- in the name of Subhashri and the said amount be kept in the shape of fixed deposit in any nationalised bank for a period of 10 years under the joint signature of Saroj Kumar Pani and Priyambada Pani. 22. So far as the permanent alimony for Priyambada is concerned, in keeping the fact that Priyambada will require continuous treatment throughout her life, we are of the view in keeping the facts as emanate from the present case and considering the background and assets and earning capacity of the husband-Saroj Kumar Pani, we enhance the amount of permanent alimony payable to Priyambada Pani to an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-(Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand). This amount shall be paid in one instalment towards her permanent alimony and upon the payment being made within a period of three months from the date of this order the decree of divorce granted by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack shall become effective. With the aforesaid directions, both the appeals are allowed in part and stand disposed of. L. Mohapatra, J. 23. I agree.