JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner of Matrimonial Case No. 14 of 2003 (Vikash Kumar Deubey alias Saroj Dubey vs. Savita Devi), has preferred this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and is directed against the judgment dated 24.7.2009, whereby his prayer for a decree of divorce against the respondent has been rejected, and instead the decree of judicial separation has been passed with the further direction to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondent, and Rs. 1,000/- to each of the minor sons (Mukul Kumar Dubey and Vipul Kumar Dubey), payable through the respondent. 2. According to the appellants case, he was married to the respondent as per the Hindu rites on 1.5.1995. The Gauna took place in the third week of February 1996, and she joined him in the matrimonial home oh 22.2.1996. The couple begot two sons, namely, Mukul Kumar Dubey and Vipul Kumar Dubey. It did not take long for the couple to develop strained relationship. She used to go to her Naihar without her husbands consent and used to overstay there, showing unwillingness to return to her matrimonial home. This gave rise to suspicion in his mind which strengthened with passage of time that she has developed illicit relationship with Ram Awadhesh Dubey, her own Bahnoi. This was followed by number of cases at her instance, as a result of which the appellant alongwith his family members were in custody as under-trial prisoners for a fairly long time. Some of the cases are still pending adjudication in the district courts. It is his further case that the couple last lived together in December 2002, whereafter she has gone to her Naihar and has not returned back so far. 3. On the other hand, the respondents case is that she was meted out illtreatment by the appellant who is given to consumption of liquor and would, in state of intoxication, quite often, assault her. For the sake of children, she put up with the ill-treatment for quite some time. In view of the inexorable ill-treatment, the respondent was compelled to retrace her steps to her Naihar. Her further case is that she is still willing to go back to her matrimonial home and live with the appellant provided he desists from ill-treatment. 4. For the sake of children, she put up with the ill-treatment for quite some time. In view of the inexorable ill-treatment, the respondent was compelled to retrace her steps to her Naihar. Her further case is that she is still willing to go back to her matrimonial home and live with the appellant provided he desists from ill-treatment. 4. The learned trial court has found that the appellants allegation about adultery is in the realm of suspicion and has remained unsubstantiated. The appellant has also not been able to prove that the respondent is a case of mental disorder. He has further found that the appellant has been subjecting the respondent to fairly continuous ill-treatment as a result of which she has been compelled to go back to her Naihar with her two sons. The respondent has subjected the appellant and his family members to various litigations in which they have been in custody as under-trial prisoners for a fairly long time and most of those cases are still pending. He has also found that the suspicion in the appellants mind about the adulterous behaviour of the respondent coupled with ill-treatment, pendency of litigations etc. has resulted in complete break-down of the marriage. The respondent is willing to live then the husband but, in view of the situation, it is neither possible nor advisable to make an effort to restore the matrimonial relationship. Hence the impugned judgment. 5. This is a Court of facts. We are, therefore, duty bound to examine all issues of facts and law afresh and come to our own conclusions, whether or not the appellant is entitled to the decree of divorce or any other relief in the facts and circumstances of the case, and the cases of the parties. 6. The appellant examined himself as A.W. 1 in the present case. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that his wife used to go to her Naihar very frequently without seeking his consent and from there she used to go to the house of her brother-in-law, namely, Ram Awadhesh Dubey. This was always objected to by him. She lodged cases against him and his family members, some of which are still pending. In paragraph 11 he has deposed that even if his wife withdraws all the pending criminal cases, he is not prepared to keep her as his wife since he has lost confidence in her. This was always objected to by him. She lodged cases against him and his family members, some of which are still pending. In paragraph 11 he has deposed that even if his wife withdraws all the pending criminal cases, he is not prepared to keep her as his wife since he has lost confidence in her. An effort was made by him to take her back in the matrimonial home in the year 2005 which she completely declined. The other two witnesses on behalf of the appellant, namely, Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Rajeev Ranjan Pandey have supported the appellants case. 7. The opposite party (Savita Devi) got herself examined as O.P.W. 1. In paragraph 3 of her deposition, she has stated that on account of cruelty perpetrated on her in the matrimonial home, she returned to her Naihar in December 2002, and since then she is residing there. In paragraph 8, she has deposed to the effect that there was conflict of issues (fcMkf =ff w$) between husband and wife. She has lodged cases against her husband and her in-laws. She has, however, denied the suggestion that she had developed intimate relationship with her brother-in-law. The two other witnesses examined on her behalf, namely, Ram Hulas Prasad and Ram Pujan Dubey have also supported the aforesaid stand of the O.P.W. 1. 8. It thus appears to us on a dispassionate analysis of the evidence of the parties that it is not possible to decipher as to who is responsible for deterioration in the relationship. The learned trial court has observed that "... It is very difficult to visualise as to who is responsible for this deserted relationship. Both the parties, have their own truth and proceeded according to their own truth but one thing is clear that the marriage between two, is touching to irretrievable break down...". We entirely agree with the observations and we would substantiate it with our own analysis of the evidence. On the one hand, the appellant has led evidence to the effect that the respondent is guilty of adultery life, has been escaping to her Naihar frequently and without his consent, and not showing willingness to come back to her matrimonial home. We entirely agree with the observations and we would substantiate it with our own analysis of the evidence. On the one hand, the appellant has led evidence to the effect that the respondent is guilty of adultery life, has been escaping to her Naihar frequently and without his consent, and not showing willingness to come back to her matrimonial home. The evidence led by the appellant on the point of adulterous life is of a fairly general nature and we are, therefore, of the view that this part of the appellants case is rather unsubstantiated. However, a suspicion of this nature in matrimonial relationship is enough to bring about bitterness between the couple. The appellant would always be suspicious of the respondents conduct, and if it were true, the respondents mind and body would always be craving to be with somebody other than the husband. Secondly, it is quite certain on the basis of the evidence of the parties that the respondent has been retreating to her Naihar frequently and without the consent of the appellant, may be because her involvement with somebody, or may be because of the ill-treatment meted out by the appellant. The admitted position is that the couple had last lived together in December 2002, whereafter she has been entirely at her Naihar. Add to this the uncontroverted factual position that the appellant is not gainfully employed in life normally giving rise to strong feeling of frustration and worth-lessness. 9. There is yet another aspect of the matter and the position is admitted by both the sides. The respondent has started a number of cases against the appellant and his family members and they have been in custody as under-trial prisoners, the summary of which has been noted by the learned trial court and is reproduced hereinbelow:- "...It is not out of place to mention that petitioner Vikash Kumar Dubey remained in Jail for about 80 days (4.1.07 to 24.3.07) and his parents about 39 days (26.12.06 to 2.2.07) in Sasaram Town P.S. Case No. 511/08 under Section 498A IPC..." 10. The net result of the foregoing discussion is that there has been irretrievable break down of the marriage and it would be unrealistic, practically imposssible, for a person to accept his wife after he and his family members have been in jail at her instance. The net result of the foregoing discussion is that there has been irretrievable break down of the marriage and it would be unrealistic, practically imposssible, for a person to accept his wife after he and his family members have been in jail at her instance. Going by natural human conduct, no husband would be mentally ready to live with such a wife. We have noticed hereinabove that the circumstances leading to such a situation is not decipherable in view of the evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellant has, during the course of submissions, made it clear to us that the appellant is not prepared to live with the respondent. Indeed the evidence on record leads to the same conclusion. 11. We are left with no option but to come to the irresistible conclusion that there has been irretrievable break down of the marriage between the parties. We hasten to add that we have not found it possible to come to the definite conclusion as to who has been responsible for the same. This absolves the respondent of the charge of adultery. 12. We also note the admitted position that the couple has two sons who are living with the respondent. They are fairly young in age and have a long way to go to find their feet in this world. Therefore, provision has to be made for their sustenance and the mother, in fact, an aspect of the matter noticed by the learned trial court with which we substantially agree with minor modifications. 13. In the result, we allow this appeal. The marriage between the parties is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce. The appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand) per month in the name of the respondent, and Rs. 1,000/- (rupees one thousand) per month each in the names of the two children as per the order of the learned Family Court. The money will be so deposited by the appellant by the 7th day of each month in a joint savings bank account to be opened by the respondent of her own choice to be communicated to the appellant. The respondent shall be entitled to the amount till her remarriage or death, whichever occurs earlier. The two sons will be entitled to the amounts till such time they attain thirty years of age or death, whichever occurs earlier. 14. The respondent shall be entitled to the amount till her remarriage or death, whichever occurs earlier. The two sons will be entitled to the amounts till such time they attain thirty years of age or death, whichever occurs earlier. 14. We are glad to note that the appellant has at this stage agreed to give a liquidated amount of Rs. 6,00,000- (Rupees six lacs) in full and final payment and in lieu of the monthly alimony indicated in the preceding paragraph and the respondent willingly accepts the same. 15. Put up on 10.2.2010 under the heading For orders, on which date learned counsel for the appellant shall be ready with a demand draft of Rs. 6,00,000/- (rupees six lacs) on any nationalised Bank at Village-Rajpur or the place nearest to that in favour of the respondent. The appellant shall pay the dues to the respondent and the two sons as per the impugned judgment till the date the demand draft is handed over. 16. Let copies of this order be handed over to Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent.