JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is against a judgment and order dated 4th September, 2003 passed by the Principal Judge, First Family Court, Calcutta dismissing Matrimonial Suit No.128 of 2002 filed by the appellant husband against the respondent wife, seeking a decree of divorce. 2. It appears that the appellant husband was married to the respondent wife according to the Hindu Rites on 24th February, 1985. On 14th January, 1987, a son was born of the said wedlock between the respondent wife and the appellant husband. It appears that the appellant husband and the respondent wife lived together as husband and wife till 1995, but thereafter parted ways. In the plaint filed in the Court below, the petitioner alleged as follows: "That the parties lived happily and enjoyed their conjugal life upto the year of 1995. That the petitioner is an employee of State Bank of Hyderabad, was then posted at Brabourne Road Branch, Kolkata. On 23.5.96 the petitioner received an official instruction/circular in connection with the Income Tax return asking to file separate individual return of Income Tax apart from returns submitted by the employer/office. On receipt of this circular, the petitioner met the Branch Manager and narrated him regarding the joint A/c. he had. Then the Branch Manager advised to the petitioner to delete the name of respondent from the joint A/c. and convert the A/c in the name of the petitioner only, other wise your petitioner would not be allowed to file Income Tax return as asked by the Income Tax Deptt. Accordingly your petitioner wrote an application addressed to Branch Manager to delete the name of respondent from the said joint salary account and the petitioner put his signature on the application. On returning at home the petitioner narrated the facts and circumstances tot he respondent and handover the said application and the respondent was asked to go through the application and sigh. The respondent not only refuse to sign on the said application but also began to abuse various filthy and vulgar languages all though the letter was given for sign at 6-30 p.m. and your petitioner waited upto 10-20 p.m. Instead of signing over the application the respondent further created a scene by raising hue and cry which attracted various people from the neighbours etc. who came on the spot and dragged the petitioner out of his house and even assaulted the petitioner by fist and blows at the instance of the respondent. Not being satisfied with such humiliation tot he petitioner by the local residence, the respondent on the next day i.e. on 24.5.96 left the matrimonial home at about 5-15 a.m. with the minor child without giving any information/whereabouts to the petitioner and at noon time she went to the State Bank of Hyderabad (the then place of employment of the petitioner) alongwith her elder brother and few other local holligans and met the Branch Manager of the said Bank and narrated several baseless allegations against the petitioner with a clear intention to further humiliate the petitioner in presence of his office staff, customers etc. such act of the respondent defamed the petitioner before this boss, superiors, colleagues and customers. That due to the fear of further humiliation the petitioner not returned to his house on 24.5.96 and he spent the night at his friends house. After his official duty on 25.5.96 the petitioner returned to his house. At about 12.30 A.M. on 26.5.96, the respondent, her elder brother along with ore or less 20 associates and hooligans came in to the house of the petitioner. The mother-in-law opened to door and some of them entered into the bed room of the petitioner the elder brother of the respondent namely Subhendu Bikash Paul kicked (having shoe on his leg) on the face of the petitioner (without asking anything from the petitioner) causing bleeding injury on his forehead. Thereafter the brother-in-law assaulted the petitioner mercilessly and brutally by fist and blows at the instance and provocation of the respondent and her mother, even in such a condition, the respondent was in jovial mood and started to club her hands alongwith her mother. Thereafter the respondent, her mother, brother and others forced to write the petitioner on a paper in the form of a declaration and thereafter the holligans and associates left the place at about 1.45 A.M. along with the petitioners brother in law. However the respondent and her mother stayed thereat. The petitioner himself took first aid after one and half hours of the incident. The respondent and her mother threatened to petitioner for not going to the police Station or elsewhere. However the respondent and her mother stayed thereat. The petitioner himself took first aid after one and half hours of the incident. The respondent and her mother threatened to petitioner for not going to the police Station or elsewhere. On that night the respondent along with her mother took their dinner and close the room for the night. The petitioner was not supplied any food. The petitioner spent the night sitting at the balcony alone. That on the next day i.e. on 27.5.96 the petitioner after his official duty went to Baranagar Police Station but the police officers were busy with one dacoity case and they asked the petitioner to come on the next morning. The petitioner accordingly on 28.5.96 at Morning went to Police and lodge Diary recorded as Baranagar Police Station G.D.E. No.1591 dated 28.5.96 the petitioner forthwith referred to Baranagar Sstate General Hospital where he was medically treated by the Doctor (Vide Hospital reference/outdoor ticket No. 11089 dated 28.5.96). That on 31.5.96 the petitioner changed his residence from Ata Para, Dum Dum to Madhyamgram, 24-Parganas (North). Be it noted that the contractual period of Staying thereat was completed on 31.5.96 and the said shifting was taken place after giving 30 days prior intimation to the Landlord, i.e. on 1.5.96. That the Respondent and her mother came at Madhyamgram along with the petitioner. The petitioner used to stay there at and under the same roof with the respondent and her mother under threat and compulsion. The Respondent and her mother used to treat the petitioner as their servant and the petitioner used to say that she would not account for her works and activities but the petitioner was bound to maintain herself. That the time passes but the respondent not made any attempt to adjust herself with the petitioner rather she became more and more aggressive and adament towards the petitioner. The respondent keeps away herself from all her domestic and matrimonial duties. She even stopped to serve the food to the petitioner. That on 11.6.96 the mother of respondent alongwith some political leaders/local people went to the office of the petitioner and created a scene thereon. The mother in law even suggested the colleagues of the petitioner that the petitioner should be removed from his service and it would be better to appoint the respondent in his place. These act defamed the petitioner very seriously. The mother in law even suggested the colleagues of the petitioner that the petitioner should be removed from his service and it would be better to appoint the respondent in his place. These act defamed the petitioner very seriously. That on 6th February, 1997 on his return from office in the evening, the petitioner drank water as usual from his water jug at about 7 p.m. After an hour of drinking the water the petitioner felt uneasy and ultimately had several time loose motions with vomiting, but strange to say that the respondent did not move to offer succour to the petitioner while he was vomiting in the bathroom. The petitioner was simply struck with surprise ad disgust to see the attitude of the mother of the boy, who did not show any concern for the boys injured leg for which he was crying. That even after the last mentioned incident, the petitioner tried his level best to maintain the family peace of avoiding all matters that could crop up controversies between the petitioner and the respondent, but the latter continuing to maintain her stoic indifference towards the petitioner and also in domestic affairs. That towards end of February 1997 the annual examination of the minor son Abhee commenced and continued upto 11.3.97. Abhee was then reading in St. Marrys School at Dum Dum (which is one of the renowned schools in Kolkata) where he was escorted by the petitioner in the morning (at the beginning of the school hours) while the respondent used to take the boy home after the close of the school at about 2 p.m. That on 11th March, 1997 the petitioner escorted the boy as usual to his school in the morning for his last examination and after leaving the boy the petitioner left for Calcutta to attend his office at Brabourne Road on that day. on his return at Home in the evening the petitioner found his room under lock and key and nobody was there, neither the respondent nor their minor son. The petitioner on enquiry came to learn from the landlady who staying upstairs of the house, that she saw the respondent leaving the house carrying two full of big shoppers bags (contents not known) on questioning the landlady, the petitioner came to know that the respondent did not tell anything to the landlady about her leaving the house. The petitioner on enquiry came to learn from the landlady who staying upstairs of the house, that she saw the respondent leaving the house carrying two full of big shoppers bags (contents not known) on questioning the landlady, the petitioner came to know that the respondent did not tell anything to the landlady about her leaving the house. That in such helpless situation the petitioner went to the local police Station to inform, that his wife/respondent had left the house alongwith son without giving any information to the petitioner the officer in Charge of the local police station after hearing the petitioner, surprised him by saying that the petitioner's wife came to the police station on the previous day i.e. on 10.3.97 and informed the officer-in-charge that she would leave the house on the next day i.e. on 11.3.97. That the respondent has settled a new mode of life and the marriage has broken down irretrievably. The respondent now a staff of Taki House Govt. Sponsored Multipurpose Girls School (Primary Section) situated at 301/2, A/P/C/ Road, Kolkata - 700009. That the petitioner was on leave from 1.9.97 pt 20.9.97 from his office. During that period i.e. on 3.9.97 the respondent and her father went to the office of the petitioner at State Bank of Hyderabad Brabourne Road Branch Kolkata and narrated various false/self created allegations to the Branch Manager and further filed one application asking the Branch Manager to stop the payment without joint signature with respondent of the petitioners salary a/c. On the basis of that letter the authority stopped the payment from the said A/c. and as a result the petitioner failed to withdraw his monthly salary for the months of August, 1997 and September, 1997. The manner called the petitioner and condemned him in presence of colleagues of all rank. That again on 24.12.98 the father of the respondent went to the present office of the petitioner as Burrabazar branch, Kolkata and started to shouting/chaos within the business hours in presence of the Colleagues and customers. Finding no other alternative the petitioner went to local Police Station at Burrabazar ad lodged a diary recorded as G.D.E. No. 3388 dated 24.12.98. That the Ld. Magistrate of Sealdah Court being Case No. M/27 of 1997 as well as the 6th Addl. Dist. Finding no other alternative the petitioner went to local Police Station at Burrabazar ad lodged a diary recorded as G.D.E. No. 3388 dated 24.12.98. That the Ld. Magistrate of Sealdah Court being Case No. M/27 of 1997 as well as the 6th Addl. Dist. Judge at Alipore (Mat Suit No.1 of 2000) tried to reconciliation between parties but the said reconciliation was failed at the instance of the respondent. Even the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Talukdar of Calcutta High Court took his personal initiative for further reconciliation at his Court room after the days work and His Lordship tried to convenience the respondent by saying to treat him as elder brother not as Hon'ble Justice. The said attempt I connection with case no.973 of 2001 was in vain due to the adamancy of the respondent. The respondent flatly refused to lead conjugal life with the petitioner. That the respondent went to such extent, that she even filed an application with Head Master Mr. Subimal Shaw of Mitra Institution, Primary Section, Calcutta 700009 (where Master Abhee was a student) asking him not to allow the petitioner to meet with his said son and copies were forwarded to the Class teacher, District Inspector of Schools and also Amherst Street Police Station. As a consequence, the School authority withdraw their verbal permission to meet Master Abhee Halder. Such a motivated and inhuman activities broke the heart of the petitioner. However the petitioner narrated the situation through an application at the Amherst Street Police Station recorded as G.D.E. No.352 dated 4.8.98. That the respondent left the matrimonial home permanently on 11.3.97 at her own accord and deserted the petitioner with an intention to break the matrimonial tie. That the petitioner then filed one application u/s.9 of Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution conjugal right before the Ld. Judge at Alipore 24 Parganas (S) registered as Matrimonial Suit No.1481/97. However the petitioner withdrawn the said suit on 22.4.2002 after paying full amount Rs. 54,000/- (Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost) for 26 months @ Rs. 2000/- p.m. (Rs. 1500/- for Respondent & Rs. 500/- for minor child) as alimony as per order No.45/dated 20.8.01." 3. The respondent wife filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. In the plaint, it is alleged that from the inception, the petitioner was ill-treated by the respondent wife and her mother. 2000/- p.m. (Rs. 1500/- for Respondent & Rs. 500/- for minor child) as alimony as per order No.45/dated 20.8.01." 3. The respondent wife filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. In the plaint, it is alleged that from the inception, the petitioner was ill-treated by the respondent wife and her mother. The respondent wife denied that her mother lived with her. 4. On a perusal of the plaint as also the written statement, one thing is clear. The main clash between the appellant and the respondent was the result of a devious attempt on the part of the appellant husband, to have the respondent wife’s name deleted from the common joint account, in which the salary of the appellant husband was credited. 5. The reasons disclosed by the appellant husband in the plaint, for trying to remove the name of the respondent wife from the bank account, is absurd. There could be no reason at all for any employer or for that matter, the Income Tax authorities, to insist on deletion of the name of the wife from a joint account to which the salary of the appellant husband was being credited. 6. There is also some difference between the versions of the appellant husband and the respondent wife, in relation to what exactly happened. According to the respondent wife, she was merely asked to put a signature. She was not even told the reason for deletion of her name. 7. On consideration of the pleadings, the evidence and the office circular on which reliance has been placed, which only shows that all employees were asked to file individual returns, it may be deduced that differences had cropped up between the appellant husband and the respondent wife for which the appellant husband was trying to remove the name of the respondent wife from the joint account to which his salary was being credited, possibly, because he was contemplating initiation of proceedings for divorce, whatever be the reason. 8. The refusal of a wife to an arbitrary request to sign documents deleting her name from joint accounts, cannot, per se, in our view, constitute cruelty entitling the appellant husband to a decree of divorce. May be the respondent wife changed only after the attempt of the appellant husband to have her name deleted from the joint bank account. 9. The refusal of a wife to an arbitrary request to sign documents deleting her name from joint accounts, cannot, per se, in our view, constitute cruelty entitling the appellant husband to a decree of divorce. May be the respondent wife changed only after the attempt of the appellant husband to have her name deleted from the joint bank account. 9. However, there are admissions in the written statement which appear to have been overlooked by the Court below, including the admission that the respondent wife had given instructions to the school concerned where the minor son was studying, not to allow the father to meet the minor son. The explanation of the respondent wife that she had to write such letters as the appellant husband, along with his friends, had come and threatened the respondent wife that he would kidnap her from the road and also kidnap his son from the school, is patently an afterthought. She allegedly wrote such letters out of fear, for protection of her son. There is no cogent evidence on record to show that there was any real threat of kidnap of either the respondent wife or of the minor son and the writing of letters to the school authorities requesting the school authorities not to allow the father and natural guardian to meet the minor son at school, in our view, constitutes a serious act of cruelty. 10. In the written statement, the wife admitted that the appellant husband took her out on holidays, but stated that she was so taken on holidays because he was entitled to free travel. In evidence, she deposed that she was taken on holiday to a hill station with ill-motive of throwing her off a boulder and killing her, though there is nothing to show that there was attempt to kill her at the hill station. 11. It is true that the respondent wife has made allegations of severe cruelty meted out to her. However, in cross-examination, she deposed as follows: "I did not try to return to my husband. It is a fact that my husband tried to take me back and filed a case at Alipore for restitution of conjugal rights. " 12. 11. It is true that the respondent wife has made allegations of severe cruelty meted out to her. However, in cross-examination, she deposed as follows: "I did not try to return to my husband. It is a fact that my husband tried to take me back and filed a case at Alipore for restitution of conjugal rights. " 12. In the written statement, there is also a tacit admission that the respondent wife visited the office of the appellant husband, even though she has denied the allegations of misbehaviour and, of course, of causing embarrassment to the appellant husband. 13. Admittedly, several attempts for reconciliation have failed and the respondent wife has clearly evinced intention not to live with the appellant husband. We find that in this case, the appellant husband and the respondent wife have crossed the point of no return. A workable solution is not possible. No useful purpose would be served in compelling the parties to live together as husband and wife. Reference may, in this context, be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 558, where the Supreme Court held: "51. The word "cruelty" has to be understood in the ordinary sense of the term in matrimonial affairs. If the intention to harm, harass or hurt could be inferred by the nature of the conduct or brutal act complained of, cruelty could be easily established. But the absence of intention should not make any difference in the case. There may be instances of cruelty by unintentional but inexcusable conduct of any party. The cruel treatment may also result from the cultural conflict between the parties. Mental cruelty can e caused by a party when the other spouse levels an allegation that the petitioner is a mental patient, or that he requires expert psychological treatment to restore his mental health, that he is suffering from paranoid disorder and mental hallucinations, and to crown it all, to allege that he and all the members of his family are a bunch of lunatics. The allegation that members of the petitioners family are lunatics and that a streak of insanity runs through his entire family is also an act of mental cruelty." "72. The allegation that members of the petitioners family are lunatics and that a streak of insanity runs through his entire family is also an act of mental cruelty." "72. Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down. The court, no doubt, should seriously make an endeavour to reconcile the parties; yet, if it is found that the breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld. The consequences of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage which has long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties." 14. Reference may also be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy, reported in (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 353, referred to and approved in Naveen Kohli (supra), where the Supreme Court held that where both the spouses had crossed the point of no return, a workable solution was not possible and parties could not reconcile their disputes and live together again as husband and wife, forgetting the past as a bad dream, the Court would have little option, but to grant divorce. 15. We are of the view that having regard to the cruelty also meted out by the respondent wife to the appellant husband by her act of writing letters to the school authorities making serious allegations against him and also having regard to the nature of the allegations in the written statement and/or in her evidence regarding the intention of the respondent husband to throw the appellant wife off a boulder, the alleged threats to kidnap the appellant wife and the minor son, the humiliating instructions to the school etc., which reflects her own attitude towards her husband, we are of the view that the respondent wife also perpetrated serious cruelty on the appellant husband, as observed above, which has been overlooked completely by the Court below. 16. The judgment and order under appeal cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed. 17. 16. The judgment and order under appeal cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed. 17. It appears from the salary slip of the months of September and October, 2013, issued by the State Bank of Hyderabad, being the employer of the appellant husband that the gross income of the appellant husband is Rs. 35,584/- as per the particulars given below: Basic Pay 17,300/- Stagnation Allowance 3,200/- Dearness Allowance 11,421/- House Rent Allowance 2,423/- Other Allowances 1,240/- 18. The following amounts are, however, deducted from the gross salary of the appellant husband: Income Tax 1,840/- Professional Tax 150/- Provident Fund 2,429/- Housing Loan Instl. 4,140/- Demand Loan Instl. 4,000/- Long Term Loan Instl. 4,100/- Short Term Loan Instl. 2,915/- Total 19,574/- 19. The take home pay, at present, is Rs. 16010.65p. 20. In U. Sree v. U. Srinivas, reported in (2013) 2 WBLR (SC) 737, the Supreme Court held that while granting permanent alimony, no arithmetical formula can be admitted, as there cannot be mathematical exactitude. It shall depend upon the status of the parties, their respective social needs, the financial capacity of the husband and other obligations. 21. In the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court relied on its earlier judgment in Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, reported in (2011) 13 Supreme Court Cases 112, where the Supreme Court held that while dealing with the concept of permanent alimony, the Court is required to take note of the fact that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife, should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort, considering her status and the mode of life she was used to, when she lived with her husband. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living condition of the other party. 22. It is true that in awarding maintenance/alimony, the Court may overlook loans which might have been taken by the husband with a view to reduce the total income to deny the wife of maintenance. The Court may also overlook frivolous loans for personal reasons. In the instant case, it appears that the housing loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- was taken in October, 2001 and another Rs. 1,30,000/- in June, 2005 and the deduction is to continue even after retirement, till the appellant husband attains the age of seventy years. The Court may also overlook frivolous loans for personal reasons. In the instant case, it appears that the housing loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- was taken in October, 2001 and another Rs. 1,30,000/- in June, 2005 and the deduction is to continue even after retirement, till the appellant husband attains the age of seventy years. In addition, the appellant husband obtained long term loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- in June, 2009, demand loan of Rs. 96,000/- in July, 2013 and short term loan of Rs. 1,38,000/- in July, 2013 and these loans are to be adjusted till the date of retirement of the appellant husband, which is in February, 2016. 23. It is not in dispute that the appellant husband has had to pay arrears of maintenance totalling Rs. 4,69,775/-, as per the particulars given hereinbelow: 5.4.2005 As per order in 125 Cr.P.C. proceeding and order in CAN 2985 of 2005 Abhee (son) was paid by Bankers cheque dated 2.4.2005 16,500/- 8.6.2005 As per order in CAN 2985 of 2005 Rs. 2,000/- for son and Rs. 3,000/- for wife on different dates payment from November, 2005 to October, 2006 was paid pursuant to order of the Court presided over by the Hon'ble Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta 60,000/- 21.3.2007 Four Bankers cheque @ Rs. 4975/- X 4 for months of November, 2006 to February, 2007 19,900/- 5.9.2007 5 cheques @ Rs. 4970/- X 5 for the month of March, 2007 to July, 2007 24,875/- 9.4.2008 5 cheques @ Rs. 4970/- X 5 for month of August, 2007 to December, 2007 (only for wife) in terms of order in CAN 1309 of 2007 49,700/- 21.5.2009 10 cheques @ Rs. 4970/- X 10 for months of January, 2008 to October, 2008 49,700/- 30.7.2013 By Pay Order (November, 2008 To August, 2009) 50,000/- 12.8.2013 In terms of order dated 30.7.2013 by Pay Order (September, 2009 to December, 2012 - 40 months) 2,00,000/- Total 4,69,775/- 24. A Sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been paid on 30th July, 2013 and Rs. 2,00,000/- on 12th August, 2013. It is submitted that many of the loans have been utilised towards payment of maintenance/alimony to the respondent wife. 25. We are informed that the son of the appellant and the respondent is residing with the respondent wife. Even though the son has attained majority, he is still unemployed. 26. 2,00,000/- on 12th August, 2013. It is submitted that many of the loans have been utilised towards payment of maintenance/alimony to the respondent wife. 25. We are informed that the son of the appellant and the respondent is residing with the respondent wife. Even though the son has attained majority, he is still unemployed. 26. We find that the take home salary of the appellant husband is Rs. 16,010/- and the take home pay of the respondent wife, who is a para teacher, is Rs. 5670/-. Added together the total works out to Rs. 21,680/-. The ends of justice would be sub-served if the husband and the wife both retain 50%, that is, Rs. 10,840/-. We, therefore, award permanent alimony of Rs. 6000/- per month to the respondent wife. Having regard to the past conduct of the appellant husband, who has repeatedly defaulted in making payments, we direct that a sum of Rs. 6000/- shall be directly deducted by the employer bank, State Bank of Hyderabad from the salary of the appellant husband and deposited in the bank account being no.05310100013155 of the respondent wife maintained in UCO Bank, Rajabazar Branch, Kolkata within the seventh day of each month. The appellant husband shall also, in addition, pay arrears of maintenance from January, 2013 to October, 2013 (Rs. 50,000/-) within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Appeal is allowed.