JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J. 1. This appeal by the wife is directed against the judgment dated 10-04-2008 delivered by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura in T.S. (Divorce) 08 of 2006 whereby he allowed the petition of divorce filed by the husband and granted divorce to the husband on the ground of desertion and also directed the husband to pay monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 3,000/- as well as litigation costs. On 24-09-2013, none had appeared for the wife and we had dismissed the case in default. Thereafter, on an application being moved by learned counsel, the matter was restored and on 28-01-2014 it was directed that the matter be listed today. Today also none appears for the appellant. This matter was also heard in part on 16-09-2013. The matrimonial proceedings were started as far back as in the year 2006 and almost 8(eight) years have elapsed. Therefore, we proceed to decide the matter on merits after perusing the record and the judgment of the learned Court below. 2. From the material on record, it is obvious that the parties were married according to Hindu rites on 14-08-2001. The husband at the relevant time was working as Assistant Teacher in the Taibandal Higher Secondary School. The wife had a temporary job as a teacher at Ambedkar Girls Hostel, Agartala. According to the husband, it was agreed that the wife would give up the job and join her husband at Taibandal. This fact is disputed by the wife who stated that in fact, her husband had wanted her to continue the job and was waiting for her to be regularized in the job. 3. It appears that the troubles started soon after the marriage and the wife started residing at Agartala, not in her parental home but in a room which she had rented separately. She visited her husband off and on and out of this wedlock, a girl was born in the year 2002. The situation, however, did not improve and finally, the husband filed a petition for divorce in the year 2006. According to the husband, his wife had deserted him and was not willing to reside with him despite the fact that he was willing to look after her. The situation, however, did not improve and finally, the husband filed a petition for divorce in the year 2006. According to the husband, his wife had deserted him and was not willing to reside with him despite the fact that he was willing to look after her. He also alleged that his wife was treating him and his family members with cruelty; that the wife was not doing any housework and that she was abusive to the husband and her in laws. On the other hand, the stand of the wife was that she was always ready and willing to live like a wife in the matrimonial home, but she had virtually been thrown out from the matrimonial home by the husband. 4. Here it would be pertinent to mention that there are no allegations or counter allegations of physical beating by any side. This, in our opinion, is a case of a marriage having gone totally wrong. Admittedly, the marriage was an arranged marriage and as held by the learned trial Court, it appears that the wife and husband could not pull on together and the wife, therefore, decided to reside at Agartala. In case, the evidence of the husband and the witnesses produced by him are read together, the only allegation against the wife is that she left her matrimonial home to live at Agartala. The only other allegation which has been leveled against her is that at one of the ceremonies after the death of the father of the husband, the wife behaved in a highly irresponsible manner and when this was objected to by the husband, she abused him in presence of all the relatives. On the other hand, the stand of the wife is that she on learning about her father-in-law's death immediately came to the village and took part in all the ceremonies like any daughter-in-law. Her case is that she did not use any abusive language. The wife has not examined any witnesses other than herself. 5. As far as cruelty is concerned, we are of the considered view that the husband has failed to make out a case of cruelty. Even with regard to the incident which allegedly took place when the post death ceremonies of the father of the husband were being performed, the evidence is very vague that the wife used abusive language. 5. As far as cruelty is concerned, we are of the considered view that the husband has failed to make out a case of cruelty. Even with regard to the incident which allegedly took place when the post death ceremonies of the father of the husband were being performed, the evidence is very vague that the wife used abusive language. What was the nature of the abusive language has not been spelt out. Though PW-2 and 3 supported the husband to the limited extent that the wife raised her voice and used abusive language, we are of the view that unless one understands what are the total circumstances behind the occurrence, one cannot blame the wife alone. Her version that she was not allowed to take part in the death ceremonies of her father-in-law cannot be discounted totally, keeping in view the longstanding strained relations between the parties. 6. Here it would be pertinent to mention that the husband has admitted that when his wife was pregnant and, in fact, even when she delivered a child at a Nursing Home in Agartala, he did not even care to visit Agartala. His only explanation is that he could not come to Agartala since his mother was unwell. True it is, that a son owes a duty to his mother, but a husband also owes an equal duty and responsibility to his wife. The man must weigh both his responsibilities and is obliged both morally and legally to discharge both responsibilities as best as he can. Here the husband had virtually left his wife alone at the time of pregnancy. Therefore, as far as cruelty is concerned, we are of the considered view that no ground of cruelty is made out. 7. Coming to the second aspect, that is the issue of desertion, we feel that here the case of the husband stands on a much better footing. The wife has not denied the fact that she continued to live in Agartala after her marriage. According to the husband, there was no economic compulsion to do so. Even the wife has not clearly denied this fact but according to her, she was asked to continue in the job by the husband since over period of time she would become a permanent employee. According to the husband, there was no economic compulsion to do so. Even the wife has not clearly denied this fact but according to her, she was asked to continue in the job by the husband since over period of time she would become a permanent employee. However, the husband states that he had always asked her to give up the job and live in the village with him. It is more than apparent that the wife was not willing to live with the husband in the village. Here it would not be out of place to mention that the wife did not even reside with her parents at Agartala but took up a separate room while working in a temporary job which was paying only Rs. 1,500/- per month. This was not sufficient incentive to stay in Agartala away from her husband. Though the wife has faintly averred that she was forced out of her matrimonial home, no credible evidence has been led to prove this fact. 8. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the wife left her matrimonial home without sufficient cause and, therefore, she had deserted her husband and on this count, the decree of divorce must be upheld. At this stage, it would not be out of place to point out that when the learned trial Court tried to arrive at a reconciliation between the parties, the wife stated that she neither wanted a divorce nor she wanted to stay with the husband. This itself shows that she does not want to reside with her husband and this amounts to desertion also. 9. Therefore, the husband is entitled to a decree of divorce which is accordingly upheld. While granting a decree of divorce, we must take into consideration the fact that there is a minor daughter born out of the wedlock and the interest of the minor will have to be protected. As far as the wife is concerned, she was offered regular appointment in the year 2012. Now she is also employed as a teacher in the Education Department though on fixed pay basis and her salary will be much less than that of the husband. As far as the wife is concerned, she was offered regular appointment in the year 2012. Now she is also employed as a teacher in the Education Department though on fixed pay basis and her salary will be much less than that of the husband. The wife also has to maintain the minor child and there is evidence on record to show that the minor child is suffering from a serious eye ailment and had to be taken to Kolkata for treatment also. 10. Keeping into consideration the aforesaid facts, while upholding the decree of divorce, we direct that the husband should pay maintenance as follows:- (i) That, in case, the husband wants to pay one time maintenance, then he shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- in full and final settlement, out of which Rs. 2,50,000/- shall be paid to the wife and Rs. 3,00,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of the minor Miss Sagarika Chakraborty and the amount shall be kept in fixed deposit till the minor attains the age of 21 years and only the interest on the fixed deposit shall be released in favour of the mother Smti. Sankari Chakraborty, who shall use the amount on the education and treatment of the minor. This lump sum maintenance should be paid on or before 31-05-2014 by depositing it in the Registry of this Court. (ii) In case, the husband is not willing to pay lump sum maintenance, then he shall pay monthly maintenance @ Rs. 6,000/- per month, out of which Rs. 3,500/- shall be used for the upkeep of the minor and the remaining Rs. 2,500/- shall be paid to the wife. This maintenance will be effective with effect from 01-03-2014. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Send down the LCRs forthwith.