JUDGMENT ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE.J: PLAINT CASE 1. Mita Datta Roy was married to Priti Gopal Dutta Roy. The marriage was fixed through negotiation by common relation and/or friend that was solemnized on December 8, 1994. Mita was originally from Orissa where her parents were residing. Her father was a businessman in Orissa. Her in-law’s family was disciple of Thakur Anukul Chandra. They were strictly vegetarian as claimed by Priti Gopal. According to him, Mita came from a different culture and it was difficult for her to adjust the culture, food habit of her in-laws that gave rise to initial discord. At least on five occasions she abruptly left her in-law's place and on each occasion her in-laws persuaded her to come back. In 1997, she gave birth to her only child. There was difference of opinion on the issue of daughter’s education. 2. Priti Gopal filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights being Matrimonial Suit No.4 of 1998. Despite his best efforts, he could not persuade Mita to come back to her in-law’s place. Priti Gopal withdrew the said suit and filed a suit for divorce being Matrimonial Suit No.85 of 2000 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Again there was rapprochement. Priti Gopal withdrew the second suit, however, situation did not improve, that gave rise to filing of the third suit for divorce being Matrimonial Suit No.12 of 2003 by Priti Gopal. 3. In the plaint, Priti Gopal alleged that Mita was paranoid. She caused mental cruelty to Priti by making incorrect allegations alleging extra marital affair Priti Gopal had with his colleague Sucheta Mallick and his elder sister-in-law (brother’s wife). He also alleged that Mita widely spread scandal that caused immense damage to his character resulting in mental cruelty. According to him, Mita went to his workplace and created a scene by making wild and bold allegations against Priti Gopal. WRITTEN STATEMENT 4. Mita filed written statement denying each and every allegation that was brought against her. She however, hinted special relation Priti Gopal had been maintaining with two ladies named above. She complained that she had been driven out from her matrimonial home by her in-laws where her sister-in-law had played the leading role. EVIDENCE 5. At the time of trial, Priti Gopal got support from his colleague Avik Paul who denied extra marital relationship of Priti Gopal with Sucheta. She complained that she had been driven out from her matrimonial home by her in-laws where her sister-in-law had played the leading role. EVIDENCE 5. At the time of trial, Priti Gopal got support from his colleague Avik Paul who denied extra marital relationship of Priti Gopal with Sucheta. One doctor came to depose that Priti Gopal became a patient of depression due to matrimonial discord. Mita got support from the neighbours at New Alipur where the couple stayed together. The neighbours wanted to intervene to settle the discord between the couple, they were driven out. They also hinted at the lady (brother’s wife) mentioned above. JUDGMENT 6. The learned Judge considered the evidence and ultimately signed the Decree of Divorce in favour of Priti Gopal. The learned Judge observed, Mita could not prove the allegation of extra marital relationship that would amount to mental cruelty to the husband. The workplace incident, referred to above, played a vital role in getting a divorce as the learned Judge believed the story and observed that it was a worse kind of mental cruelty. The learned Judge observed, “so I have every reason to believe that this is a warst form of mental cruelty made by the wife against her husband and in such circumstances there is every reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious to live with his wife, the respondent.” APPEAL 7. Being aggrieved, Mita filed the instant appeal on July 20, 2007. PRELUDE TO HEARING - CONCILIATION 8. The appeal was made ready for hearing. It appeared before a Division Bench on April 8, 2011 when it was released on personal ground of the Hon’ble Judge presiding over the said Bench. The matter was assigned to another Bench. The Division Bench asked the parties to appear in Court. Accordingly, the matter appeared before the Division Bench on May 4, 2011. The Division Bench found a ray of hope for a re-union. Priti Gopal expressed his willingness to contribute towards educational expenses of his daughter over and above the maintenance that was awarded by the Court below. The matter appeared before the Bench time to time. However, the same could not be finally resolved. The matter started appearing before us after change of determination. We also asked the parties to appear. Priti Gopal expressed his willingness to contribute towards educational expenses of his daughter over and above the maintenance that was awarded by the Court below. The matter appeared before the Bench time to time. However, the same could not be finally resolved. The matter started appearing before us after change of determination. We also asked the parties to appear. Accordingly, the parties appeared before us and we tried our level best to have a happy re-union. Initial hurdle was the daughter’s education. The husband complained that due to mental depression and wife’s disturbance at the workplace he lost his job. He was unemployed for a long time. Ultimately, he got a job that however, did not suitably remunerate him, as a result he would not be in a position to spend for the daughter’s education over and above the maintenance which he was spending. The wife informed the Court, daughter stopped going to school, as she could not pay her education fees. It was a terrible shock to the Court. It was a private school run by a business group. We asked the learned advocate on record who would usually appear for the said business group to intervene. Accordingly, Mr. Debanjan Mondal, learned advocate intervened and persuaded the school to arrange for a free scholarship. We must express our deepest gratitude to Mr. Mondal who used his good office and arranged for free education of the child not only for remaining two years (upto class-X) but also for another two years (class-XI-XII). We acknowledged his contribution in our order dated April 11, 2012. We must confess, despite we could arrange for free education of the girl child for four years our attempt to have a reunion of the couple could not materialize. We could not persuade them to re-unite. 9. The Court below signed a Decree of Divorce that was impugned in this appeal. The wife being the appellant ultimately expressed her willingness to accept such verdict upon payment of appropriate alimony. In short, the parties agreed to part with upon payment of a price from the husband to the wife. We could not persuade them to re-unite. 9. The Court below signed a Decree of Divorce that was impugned in this appeal. The wife being the appellant ultimately expressed her willingness to accept such verdict upon payment of appropriate alimony. In short, the parties agreed to part with upon payment of a price from the husband to the wife. Since we could not persuade them to agree to a figure we placed the appeal for hearing on a subsequent date and asked the husband to file an affidavit disclosing his assets so that we could fix the quantum of permanent alimony that would be just and reasonable and be within the capacity of the husband. HEARING – RIVAL CONTENTIONS 10. The matter came up for hearing before us on June 5, 2012 when husband filed the affidavit. From the affidavit we find that Priti Gopal had two properties, one at New Alipure along with his father and elder brother and the other at Prince Anowar Shah Road. Both the properties were sold. Out of the sale proceeds he repaid the loan that he took while acquiring the flat at Prince Anowar Shah Road. With regard to his ancestral properties at Barasat, he asserted that his father was the absolute owner of the same. He disclosed that he had three bank accounts and two life insurance policies. The net worth of the husband as appears from the affidavit is as follows: - a) Balance sale proceeds -Rs.5,86,009.00 b) Bank balance as on May 25, 2012 -Rs.1,50,373.47 c) Two Life Insurance Policy -Rs. 70,000.00 Rs. 75,000.00 --------------------------------------------- TOTAL -Rs.8,81,382.47 He gave loan to his father and brother to the extent of Rs.3 lacs out of the sale proceeds as above. He claimed to be paying regular maintenance to his wife and child @ Rs.5,500/- per month. 11. Mr. Soumen Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/wife contended that the affidavit was a cryptic one and did not represent the actual facts and figures that would reflect the real financial status of the husband. Mr. Pan further contended that bank account numbers and other particulars were not furnished. The deponent did not disclose the details of sale of New Alipure flat and Prince Anowar Shah Road flat and, thus, concealed the relevant facts preventing the Court to consider awarding of just alimony to the appellant/wife. 12. Mr. Mr. Pan further contended that bank account numbers and other particulars were not furnished. The deponent did not disclose the details of sale of New Alipure flat and Prince Anowar Shah Road flat and, thus, concealed the relevant facts preventing the Court to consider awarding of just alimony to the appellant/wife. 12. Mr. Das further contended that the appellant did not have any place of residence in the city. She was on a rented accommodation that was not suitable for her and her child. He rather insisted on a permanent arrangement with regard to their stay at the city apart from appropriate alimony. The respondent however, did not agree to such proposal. According to the respondent, he had no proper place to arrange for accommodation of the wife and the child. The respondent also offered her to come back and stay with the family that the appellant declined. The appellant was agreeable for a reunion provided the husband agreed to stay with her and her child separately. The respondent did not agree. OUR VIEW 13. In this backdrop we were left with the only question as to what would be the appropriate alimony that we could award to the wife as per the capacity of the husband. On that score, we could, ultimately, persuade the husband to pay rupees ten lacs. Mr. Das however, claimed rupees fifty lacs as, according to him, that amount would help the appellant to purchase a flat and make a future provision for both of them. 14. We have considered the rival contentions. We would have been happy if they could re-unite along with their only child. We cannot check our temptation to mention about the lovely child who appeared before us along with her Progress Card. We found that even at Class-IX she would score a good rank without having any private tuition that her mother could not arrange for her. It is most unfortunate that the said loving child is deprived of her parent’s love and affection. She is deprived of her father’s affection and company. 15. We would have been happiest persons if we could arrange for their permanent place of stay arranging an accommodation of their own. We fully agree, rupees fifty lacs could help them not only to acquire a decent accommodation of their own but also to have future provision to maintain them in a humble way. 15. We would have been happiest persons if we could arrange for their permanent place of stay arranging an accommodation of their own. We fully agree, rupees fifty lacs could help them not only to acquire a decent accommodation of their own but also to have future provision to maintain them in a humble way. However, considering the capacity of the husband the said amount would be beyond the reach. We fully agree with Mr. Das when he would say that the affidavit was a cryptic one. Such contention was made from the Bar. No counter affidavit was filed. No further particular was supplied to us to have a different version. Hence, we are compelled to rely on the statement of her husband. 16. Taking a sum total of the situation, we feel, interest of justice would subsurve, if we direct payment of rupees ten lacs by the husband to the wife. We kept the judgment reserved to enable the husband to arrange for the said sum. The matter was subsequently mentioned before us when we were told that husband could make provision of the said sum. The husband was agreeable to pay rupees three lacs by pay order which was already made and the balance seven lacs in two equal monthly instalments to be paid in two succeeding months. RESULT 17. In the result, the appeal succeeds in part. We direct the respondent to hand over the pay orders amounting to rupees ten lacs to the appellant as suggested as above. The appellant/wife would appropriate rupees four lacs for herself as permanent alimony. The balance sum of rupees six lacs be kept in a fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank to be kept renewed from time to time until Ms. Suprita Dutta Roy, the only girl child, completes her education even after attaining majority. So long she is minor the appellant would be entitled to appropriate the interest solely for her upbringing and education. After completion of her education or attaining majority whichever would be later, she (Suprita) would be entitled to the principal sum. 18. The respondent would not be obliged to pay rupees five thousand and five hundred on and from September 2012 as directed earlier. The amount would be reduced to rupees two thousand and five hundred that would be paid from September 2012 for ten years. 18. The respondent would not be obliged to pay rupees five thousand and five hundred on and from September 2012 as directed earlier. The amount would be reduced to rupees two thousand and five hundred that would be paid from September 2012 for ten years. The said sum of rupees two thousand and five hundred would be solely for the girl child Suprita for her upbringing and education. The reduced amount of maintenance as above, would start from the succeeding month of payment of last instalment of rupees ten lacs. It is abundantly made clear, the husband would be obliged to continue to pay maintenance at the rate of rupees five thousand and five hundred per month until the entire amount of rupees ten lacs is paid off. 19. With the modification as above, the judgment and decree of divorce passed by the Court below is affirmed. 20. The appeal is disposed of without any order as to costs. Urgent Photostat copy will be given to the parties, if applied for. Shukla Kabir (Sinha), J: I agree.