Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 281 (ORI)

Narmada Jena @ Swain v. Bidyadhar Swain

2015-04-24

S.K.SAHOO, VINOD PRASAD

body2015
Judgment S.K. Sahoo, J. “Marriage is not 50-50 Divorce is 50-50 Marriage has to be 100-100 It is not about dividing everything in half But giving everything you’ve got!” -Dave Willis This is an appeal filed by the appellant-wife under section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 2.12.2014 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri passed in Civil Proceeding No.211 of 2012 in dissolving the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce w.e.f. the date of decree and also directing the respondent-husband to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-(rupees three lacs) to his daughter for day to day maintenance within a period of three months. 2. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13(1) (i-a) (i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereafter for short “1955 Act”) against the appellant-wife with a prayer for passing a decree of dissolution of marriage between the parties. It is the case of the respondent-husband that he married the appellant on 27.5.2004 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs and after their marriage, they lived together as husband and wife in his house and out of their wedlock, the couple were blessed with a female child namely, Laxmipriya Swain who was aged about six years at the time of presentation of the petition for divorce. It is the further case of the respondent-husband that though both of them stayed together till the year 2009 but the appellant finally left his company on 2nd January, 2010. It is the further case of the respondent-husband that when the appellant-wife got service, her family members interfered with 3 the peaceful marital life of the parties and they started pursuing her to live separately with her husband from her in-laws family members. As the respondent-husband did not agree, ill-feeling groomed between the parties. The appellant-wife started misbehaving and quarrelling with her husband for fulfilment of her desires. She became very arrogant, quarrelsome and deliberately avoided keeping conjugal relationship with her husband. She also started giving money to her parents from her husband’s income and whenever the respondent-husband was asking her regarding shortage of money, she started creating unpleasant situations in the family. When the respondent-husband tried to convince the appellant about his financial difficulties, she threatened the respondent-husband that if he would not financially help her parents then she would not take care of her father-in-law and mother-in-law. When the respondent-husband tried to convince the appellant about his financial difficulties, she threatened the respondent-husband that if he would not financially help her parents then she would not take care of her father-in-law and mother-in-law. The behaviour of the appellant-wife was very rough and she was mentally torturing to her husband and in-laws. She was not cooking food for her in-laws family members and not doing any household work and day by day her behaviour became unbearable and intolerable. At the instance of the respondent-husband, the gentlemen approached the parents of the appellant-wife to advice her to change her nature and attitude. Since January 2010, the appellant-wife left the company of her husband and started staying at her father’s place. The respondent-husband made repeated attempts to bring her back but no fruitful result came out. It is the further case of the respondent-husband that due to the mental torture by the appellant-wife and desertion, it was not possible on his part to lead a peaceful marital life with her and accordingly the petition was filed praying for a decree of dissolution of marriage between the parties. 3. On receipt of the notice from Family Court, the appellant-wife appeared and filed her written statement wherein the asseverations made in the divorce petition were controverted by stating that the respondent-husband was serving in defence and while he was staying at his service place at New Delhi, she used to be assaulted by her elder brother-in-laws. She denied to have demanded for any separate living from her in-laws or torturing either to the respondent-husband or to her in-laws family members mentally. It is her further case that she was leading a miserable life with her daughter in the house of her in-laws and she had not left her in-laws house on her own accord rather she was driven out of her in-laws house with her daughter. The appellant-wife prayed to reject the prayer for decree of dissolution of marriage made by the respondent-husband. 4. The learned trial Judge framed one issue for adjudication i.e. whether the appellant treated the respondent with cruelty by abusing him and his family members and quarrelled with them by avoiding to perform any household work and abstained herself to have conjugal relationship with the respondent and also voluntarily deserted the respondent since 2.1.2010 and did not return in spite of negotiation for the same. 5. 5. During trial, in order to substantiate his case, the respondent-husband examined two witnesses including himself as P.W.1. He examined another witness namely, Pabitra Kumar Mohanty as P.W.2 in support of his case who was staying in his neighbourhood. The appellant-wife also examined herself as R.W.1 and her maternal uncle Pitabash Sahu was examined as R.W.2. 6. The learned trial Judge considering the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, came to hold that the appellant-wife behaved in a cruel manner towards the respondent-husband and his parents and deserted the company of the respondent-husband without any sufficient cause even though the husband was not at all in fault. It is further held that though the respondent separated himself from his parents and brothers at the instance of the appellant to have a peaceful conjugal life but the appellant-wife avoided to live with her husband. 7. At the very outset, we would like to make it clear that during pendency of this appeal on the submission made by the appellant-wife that after passing of the decree of divorce, the respondent-husband was trying to solemnize a second marriage which was refuted by the learned counsel for the respondent, we passed an order on 12.1.2015 making it clear that in the event the respondent-husband clandestinely solemnize a second marriage, he would be liable under law. On 19.02.2015 it was brought to our notice that in spite of the order dated 12.1.2015, the respondent-husband had solemnized his second marriage on 31.1.2015. The respondent was present in person on that day and when asked by us, he also told us that he had solemnized the second marriage on 31st January, 2015. We held in our order dated 19.02.2015 that the second marriage by the respondent-husband was in violation of Section 15 of Hindu Marriage Act as well as contrary to our order dated 12.01.2015. We further held that the second marriage is absolutely null and void. On the next two dates, on our query, the learned counsel for the appellant-wife on instruction submitted that in view of the lis pendens developments, the appellant is no more interested to live in the company of the respondent. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant-wife submitted that the learned Judge, Family Court erred in holding that the appellant treated the respondent-husband with cruelty and thereby passing a decree of divorce without sufficient evidence. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant-wife submitted that the learned Judge, Family Court erred in holding that the appellant treated the respondent-husband with cruelty and thereby passing a decree of divorce without sufficient evidence. He further contended that in absence of examination of any of the family members of the respondent-husband, the Family Court should not have accepted the version of the respondent-husband. It is further contended that without awarding any permanent alimony in favour of the appellant-wife and awarding a meagre sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-in favour of the minor daughter for her day to day maintenance when the salary and financial status of the respondent-husband was far better, the decree of divorce should not have been passed. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand while supporting the impugned judgment and resisting the aforesaid submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the learned Judge, Family Court was justified in arriving at a conclusion that the behaviour of the appellant-wife towards the respondent and his parents was cruel and that she deserted the respondent without any sufficient cause. The learned counsel further contended that the view expressed by the trial Judge cannot be found fault with as the learned Court has, at great length, discussed the evidence and appreciated the same with utmost prudence and objectivity and there is nothing on record to show that any material part of the evidence has been ignored or something extraneous to the record has been taken into consideration. He further contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and therefore the appeal filed by the appellant-wife should be dismissed. 9. Who is an ideal wife? Our Shastra says:- “Karyeshu Dasi Karaneshu Mantri Bhojeshu Mata Shayaneshu Rambha Kshamayeshu Dharithri Roopeshu Lakshmi Sat Karmayukta Kuladharma Patni” An ideal wife is she who acts like a maid in carrying out her duties in the household; who acts like an able and intelligent minister in tendering appropriate advice to her husband; who showers affection and feeds like a mother; who fulfils conjugal desires of her husband like angel Rambha; who is patience incarnate and of forgiving nature like Mother earth; who appears with a pleasing demeanour like Goddess MahaLakshmi. She should be truthful in her duties and upkeep the family traditions. 10. She should be truthful in her duties and upkeep the family traditions. 10. First, we shall advert to what actually constitutes 'mental cruelty' and whether in the case at hand, the plea of mental cruelty and desertion as pleaded by the respondent-husband has been established or not and then we will scrutinise as to whether the findings of the learned trial Judge are perverse, unreasonable, against the material on record or based on non-consideration of relevant materials? Section 13(1)(i-a) of the 1955 Act states that any marriage solemnized can be dissolved by a decree of divorce on a petition presented either by the husband or the wife on the ground that the other party after solemnization of marriage had treated the petitioner with cruelty. The expression ‘cruelty’ has not been defined under Section 13 of the 1955 Act, though the expression ‘desertion’ has been defined as desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party which also includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage. So far as ‘cruelty’ as indicated under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the 1955 Act is concerned, law is well settled that the cruelty may be physical, mental or both. The expression 'cruelty' has got an inseparable nexus with human conduct or human behaviour. It is always dependent upon the social strata or the milieu to which the parties belong, their ways of life, relationship, temperaments and emotions that have been conditioned by their social status. The burden of proof lies on the aggrieved party to make out a case of cruelty. The act of cruelty must be such which would cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the aggrieved party that it would be harmful or injurious on his part to live with the other party. A particular conduct which may amount to cruelty in one case may not necessarily amount to cruelty in the other case due to change of various factors and different set of circumstances. In the case of Naveen Kohli v Neelu Kohli reported in AIR 2006 SC 1675 , it is held as follows:- "66. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be “grave and weighty? so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. In the case of Naveen Kohli v Neelu Kohli reported in AIR 2006 SC 1675 , it is held as follows:- "66. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be “grave and weighty? so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than “ordinary wear and tear of married life?. The conduct taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party. 67. The Court dealing with the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty has to bear in mind that the problems before it are those of human beings and the psychological changes in a spouse's conduct have to be borne in mind before disposing of the petition for divorce. However, insignificant or trifling, such conduct may cause pain in the mind of another. But before the conduct can be called cruelty, it must touch a certain pitch of severity. It is for the Court to weigh the gravity. It has to be seen whether the conduct was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. It has to be considered whether the complainant should be called upon to endure as a part of normal human life. It is for the Court to weigh the gravity. It has to be seen whether the conduct was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. It has to be considered whether the complainant should be called upon to endure as a part of normal human life. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. Cruelty in matrimonial life may be of unfounded variety, which can be subtle or brutal. It may be words, gestures or by mere silence, violent or non-violent.” In the case of Samar Ghosh V Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 511, it is held as follows:- “73. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any strait-jacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors in consideration. 74. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of 'mental cruelty'. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive. (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive. (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. (iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.” In the case of Gurbux Singh Vs. Harminder Kaur reported in AIR 2011 SC 114 , it is held as follows:- “A Hindu marriage solemnized under the Act can only be dissolved on any of the grounds specified therein. We have already pointed out that in the petition for dissolution of marriage, the appellant has merely mentioned Section 13 of the Act and in the body of the petition he highlighted certain instances amounting to cruelty by the respondent-wife. Cruelty has not been defined under the Act. It is quite possible that a particular conduct may amount to cruelty in one case but the same conduct necessarily may not amount to cruelty due to change of various factors, in different set of circumstances. Therefore, it is essential for the appellant, who claims relief, to prove that a particular/part of conduct or behaviour resulted in cruelty to him. No prior assumptions can be made in such matters. Therefore, it is essential for the appellant, who claims relief, to prove that a particular/part of conduct or behaviour resulted in cruelty to him. No prior assumptions can be made in such matters. Meaning thereby that it cannot be assumed that a particular conduct will, under all circumstances, amount to cruelty, vis-a-vis the other party. The aggrieved party has to make a specific case that the conduct of which exception is taken amounts to cruelty. It is true that even a single act of violence which is of grievous and inexcusable nature satisfies the test of cruelty. Persistence in inordinate sexual demands or malpractices by either spouse can be cruelty if it injures the other spouse. There is no such complaint by the appellant. In the case on hand, as stated earlier, the appellant has projected few instances in which, according to him, the respondent abused his parents. We have verified all the averments in the petitions, reply statement, written submissions as well as the evidence of both parties. We are satisfied that on the basis of such instances, marriage cannot be dissolved. 12. The married life should be assessed as a whole and a few isolated instances over certain period will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be precedent for a fairly lengthy period where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, one party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party no longer may amount to mental cruelty. Making certain statements on the spur of the moment and expressing certain displeasure about the behaviour of elders may not be characterized as cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of married life which happens in day to day life in all families would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Sustained unjustifiable and reprehensible conduct affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse may lead to mental cruelty.” In the case of K. Srinivas Rao V D.A. Deepa reported in AIR 2013 SC 2176 , it is held as follows:- “14. Thus, to the instances illustrative of mental cruelty noted in Samar Ghosh, we could add a few more. Sustained unjustifiable and reprehensible conduct affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse may lead to mental cruelty.” In the case of K. Srinivas Rao V D.A. Deepa reported in AIR 2013 SC 2176 , it is held as follows:- “14. Thus, to the instances illustrative of mental cruelty noted in Samar Ghosh, we could add a few more. Making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations against the spouse or his or her relatives in the pleadings, filing of complaints or issuing notices or news items which may have adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of the spouse and filing repeated false complaints and cases in the court against the spouse would, in the facts of a case, amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse.” In the case of Malathi Ravi V B.V. Ravi reported in AIR 2014 SC 2881 , it is held as follows:- “Mental cruelty and its effect cannot be stated with arithmetical exactitude. It varies from individual to individual, from society to society and also depends on the status of the persons. What would be a mental cruelty in the life of two individuals belonging to particular strata of the society may not amount to mental cruelty in respect of another couple belonging to a different stratum of society. The agonized feeling or for that matter a sense of disappointment can take place by certain acts causing a grievous dent at the mental level. The inference has to be drawn from the attending circumstances.” In the case of Ramchander V Ananta reported in 2015 (2) SCALE 634, it is held as follows:- “10. The expression 'cruelty' has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(i-a) is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards the other, which causes a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Cruelty can be physical or mental. In the present case there is no allegation of physical cruelty alleged by the Plaintiff. What is alleged is mental cruelty and it is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. Cruelty can be physical or mental. In the present case there is no allegation of physical cruelty alleged by the Plaintiff. What is alleged is mental cruelty and it is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. It is settled law that the instances of cruelty are not to be taken in isolation but to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the Plaintiff has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other spouse.” Section 13(1)(i-b) of the 1955 Act states that any marriage solemnized can be dissolved by a decree of divorce on a petition presented either by the husband or the wife on the ground that the other side had deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. Law is well settled that the party (for example, in case of husband) alleging desertion must not only prove that the other spouse was living separately but also must prove that there is an animus deserendi on the part of the wife and the husband must prove that he has not conducted himself in such a way which furnished a reasonable cause for the wife to stay away from the matrimonial home. Desertion is not the withdrawal from a place but from a state of things. To prove desertion in matrimonial matter, it is not always necessary that one of the spouses should have left the company of the other as desertion could be proved while living under the same roof. Desertion cannot be equated with separate living by the parties to the marriage. Desertion may also be constructive which can be inferred from the attending circumstances. Desertion, therefore, means withdrawing from the matrimonial obligations, i.e., not permitting of allowing and facilitating the cohabitation between the parties. Two essential conditions must be there, namely (i) the factum of separation, and (ii) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi). Similarly two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned: (i) the absence of consent, and (ii) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention aforesaid. 11. Similarly two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned: (i) the absence of consent, and (ii) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention aforesaid. 11. On perusal of the evidence led by the respondent-husband, it is found that he has supported his pleadings and stated as to how the appellant-wife avoided to keep physical relationship with him after she got a service as ‘Sikhya Sahayaka’, extracted money from him, pressurized him to get separated from his family members and also threatened him with dire consequences. He further stated as to how the she used to create disturbance in the family and as to how she did not cooperate for settlement of dispute and ultimately left the company of the respondent since December 2009. On perusal of the cross-examination of the respondent-husband, it is found that except giving suggestions, nothing has been elicited to dislodge the case of the respondent-husband. P.W.2 who was staying in his neighbourhood has also corroborated the version of P.W.1 and stated that the appellant created disturbance and quarrelled with the respondent-husband and his family members and she failed to take care of them. Nothing has been elicited also from the evidence of P.W.2 to discredit his version. The appellant-wife stated in her evidence that her father-in-law and husband’s elder brother Sanatan Swain demanded to hand over a registered sale deed relating to a piece of land in Puri Town in order to have education of the son of her husband’s elder brother and when she did not agree, she was threatened. Similarly she has stated to have deposited cash in the account of the respondent-husband as per the demand for her husband. She has stated that her parents had constructed a house in her name on a plot which was allotted to her but the respondent-husband was interested to record such a plot in his name for which she did not agree. The learned counsel for the respondent-husband contended that the evidence of R.W.1 runs contrary to her written statement and most of the events which she had narrated in her evidence had not been mentioned by her in the written statement and therefore no reliance should be placed on the same. The learned counsel for the respondent-husband contended that the evidence of R.W.1 runs contrary to her written statement and most of the events which she had narrated in her evidence had not been mentioned by her in the written statement and therefore no reliance should be placed on the same. The learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand contended that merely because the appellant had added certain aspects in her evidence which she had not stated in her written statement, the entire evidence cannot be discarded. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that since the evidence of R.W.1 is corroborated by another witness i.e. R.W.2 who is her maternal uncle, it can be safely acted upon. After carefully examining the evidence on record, the pleadings of both the parties, we found that the conduct of the appellant-wife in avoiding keeping physical relationship with the respondent-husband, pressurising him to get separated from other family members and misbehaving him and his family members would certainly amount to mental cruelty. The evidence on record further indicates that because of the disturbance created by the appellant in her in-laws house, the respondent was forced to live separately from his parents and brothers to have a peace of mind but in spite of that she deserted the respondent without any reasonable cause and without consent of her husband rather it was against the wish of her husband. The learned trial Judge was correct in not accepting the evidence led by the appellant that she was being assaulted by the respondent on minor issues like repair of grinder or there was demand of her father-in-law and elder brother of the respondent to hand over a registered sale deed relating to a piece of land at Puri Town in order to have education of the son of elder brother of the respondent to which she did not agree, as those aspects have not been mentioned in her written statement and therefore the same was afterthought stories. Thus, analysed, we have no scintilla of doubt that the conduct of the appellant-wife are such which are bound to create mental pain, anguish, suffering and reasonable apprehension in the mind of the respondent-husband that it would be harmful and injurious on his part to live with the appellant and with such state of affairs, the husband cannot be asked to put up with the conduct of the wife and to continue to live with her. In view of the lis pendens developments and particularly the fact that the parties are living separately since 2010 and the appellant-wife is no more interested to live in the company of the respondent, we are of the view that it is well nigh impossible for the husband and the wife to live together and the emotional bond between the parties is dead for all purposes. Therefore, in our view, the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Judge clearly rests on proper appreciation of facts and, hence, we concur with the same and we hold that the respondent is entitled to a decree for divorce as rightly held by the trial Judge. 12. Presently, we shall deal with the aspect pertaining to the grant of permanent alimony. The learned trial Judge has not awarded any permanent alimony in favour of the appellant on the ground that she was able to maintain herself without the support of her husband. We have already opined that the husband has made out a case for divorce by proving mental cruelty and desertion. In case of U. Sree v U. Srinivas reported in AIR 2013 SC 415 and K. Srinivas Rao v D.A. Deepa reported in AIR 2013 SC 2176 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in spite of arriving at a conclusion that the husband has made out a case for divorce proving mental cruelty, held that the wife is entitled to permanent alimony for her sustenance. As a decree of divorce is passed, the appellant-wife cannot be denied of permanent alimony for her sustenance merely because she is serving as Sikhya Sahayak under Block Education Officer, Brahmagiri. While granting permanent alimony, no arithmetic formula can be adopted as there cannot be mathematical exactitude. It shall depend upon the social status of the parties, their respective social needs, the way of living of the spouse, the financial capacity of the husband and other obligations. While granting permanent alimony, no arithmetic formula can be adopted as there cannot be mathematical exactitude. It shall depend upon the social status of the parties, their respective social needs, the way of living of the spouse, the financial capacity of the husband and other obligations. It is duty of the Court to see that the wife lives with dignity and comfort and not in penury. The living need not be luxurious but simultaneously she should not be left to live in discomfort. The Court has to act with pragmatic sensibility to such an issue so that the wife does not meet any kind of man-made misfortune. The Courts also have 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 mode of life she was used to live 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. During the course of hearing of the matter, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties on this aspect. After taking instructions from the respective parties, they have addressed us. The respondent-husband is working in defence service. He is getting a good salary. The respondent-wife who is serving as Sikhya Sahayak fought the litigation for more than two years. As such we think it just and proper to direct the respondent-husband to pay to the appellant-wife one time lump sum amount of alimony. We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in mind the job and economic status of the respective parties, a direction to the respondent to pay Rs. 5 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs only) as one time alimony to the appellant, would meet the ends of justice. 13. Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal affirming the decree of divorce granted by the Judge, Family Court, Puri in Civil Proceeding No. 211 of 2012 dissolving the marriage between the parties namely respondent Bidyadhar Swain and appellant Narmada Jena, with further direction under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 that the respondent-husband Bidyadhar Swain shall pay to the appellant-wife Narmada Jena Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs only) as a lump sum amount of permanent alimony in addition to Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs only) as a lump sum amount of permanent alimony in addition to Rs. 3,00,000/-to his daughter as awarded by trial Judge, within a period of three months from the date of this judgment failing which the appellant-wife shall be at liberty to realize the same from the respondent-husband through due process of law. 14. Before parting we would quote, “A divorce is like an amputation: you survive it, but there’s less of you.” –Margaret Atwood With the aforesaid observation and direction, the appeal is disposed of. The parties shall bear their respective costs. I agree. Appeal disposed of.