JUDGMENT S.K. SAHOO, J. - “Pure love and suspicion cannot dwell together: at the door where the latter enters, the former makes its exit.” - Alexandre Dumas Marital infidelity can ruin a marriage. Spouse’s unfaithfulness is the most painful experience which hunts them year after years. A suspicious person feels insecure and imagines some scenario about his/her partner which is far from reality. Such individuals loose mental peace and make their own lives hell. Doubting every movement and bringing unfounded accusations against the partner without judging the situation fairly and impartially leads to strained relationship and finally the breakup of marriage. A little bit of suspicion against the character of the life partner is like a drop of poison in a glass of water, if not taken care of at the threshold with mutual understanding and love for each other is not rebuild forgetting the past, it can spoil the whole sanctity of marriage. The relationship between husband and wife is so delicate that it is to be dealt with all politeness and curtesy keeping the purity of marriage intact otherwise like a cankerworm, the suspicion would start slowly eating away the marital bond. Here is the case of a suspicious wife who brought very serious allegations of illicit relationship between her husband with his aunt and also with seventeen other women, some of whom were married and some were spinsters. She failed to establish the same in the Court of law. She also brought allegations against her husband of torturing her physically and mentally but that also she failed to establish rather the husband established that the wife always entertained her male friends inside her bedroom in his absence. The husband also proved that the wife was not doing any household work and misbehaving with him as well as his family members. Resultantly, the husband succeeded in getting a decree of divorce in his favour against the wife. 2.There proceedings were instituted before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. (i)Civil Proceeding No. 123 of 2007 was instituted by Rabindra Kumar Swain (hereafter ‘the petitioner-husband’) against Smt. Namita Swain (hereafter ‘the opposite party-wife’) under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 seeking for a decree of divorce and for dissolution of marriage between the parties. (i)Civil Proceeding No. 123 of 2007 was instituted by Rabindra Kumar Swain (hereafter ‘the petitioner-husband’) against Smt. Namita Swain (hereafter ‘the opposite party-wife’) under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 seeking for a decree of divorce and for dissolution of marriage between the parties. It is the case of the petitioner-husband that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 02.07.2005 as per Hindu rites and customs and thereafter they lived together as husband and wife for about a month but then the opposite party-wife voluntarily left her matrimonial home. It is the further case of the petitioner-husband that the opposite party-wife was not performing her household works, misbehaving and insulting him and his family members and she did not even change her attitude in spite of his best efforts. She used to call other male persons inside her bedroom in the absence of her husband and ultimately she left the house of her husband and went to her father’s place on 15.12.2006 taking all her belongings. The petitioner-husband and his family members made repeated attempts to settle the matter but they were misbehaved and assaulted by the opposite party-wife and her family members. On being noticed, the opposite party-wife appeared in the case and filed her written statement denying the allegations made by her husband. It is her case that after marriage when she stayed at her matrimonial home, the petitioner-husband raised demand of dowry and when her father expressed his inability to fulfill such demand, she was subjected to torture and cruelty. Even though the local gentlemen advised the petitioner-husband to behave properly with his wife but no fruitful result came out. When the opposite party-wife came to her father’s place on 20.08.2006, the petitioner-husband made her character assassination and did not allow the opposite party-wife to return to her matrimonial house. It is her further case that the petitioner-husband not only kept illicit relationship with her aunt but also with seventeen other ladies. She also instituted a dowry torture case against her husband at Kujanga Police Station and further stated that just to defame her in the society, the petitioner-husband had brought false allegation against her. It is her further case that the petitioner-husband not only kept illicit relationship with her aunt but also with seventeen other ladies. She also instituted a dowry torture case against her husband at Kujanga Police Station and further stated that just to defame her in the society, the petitioner-husband had brought false allegation against her. (ii) The opposite party-wife also instituted a proceeding against the petitioner-husband before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was registered as Civil Proceeding No. 541 of 2008 with a prayer for decree of restitution of conjugal life. Apart from what she had narrated in her written statement in Civil Proceeding No. 123 of 2007, she asserted that the petitioner-husband was trying to marry for the second time and accordingly prayed for restraining the petitioner-husband to marry for the second time. The petitioner-husband on being noticed, entered appearance in the case, filed his written statement denying the allegations made against him by the opposite party-wife. The demand of dowry, the extra marital relationship with other ladies and the attempt for second marriage as alleged by the opposite-wife were all controverted. (iii) The opposite party-wife also filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack which was registered as Criminal Proceeding No. 389 of 2008 claiming maintenance from the petitioner-husband at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 2000/- towards litigation expenses. 3.From the side of the petitioner-husband, three witnesses were examined including the petitioner-husband as P.W.1. Similarly from the side of the opposite party-wife, six witnesses were examined, out of which opposite party-wife is O.P. W.1. 4.The learned trial Judge hearing all the three proceedings analogously, passed a common judgment and order dated 26.3.2011 wherein he came to hold that the assertion of the opposite party-wife that the petitioner-husband had illicit relationship with a number of women has not been established by her by convincing, cogent, clear and acceptable evidence and such type of aspersions had subjected the petitioner-husband to cruelty. It was further observed that the opposite party-wife failed to establish by convincing evidence that the petitioner-husband treated her with cruelty. It was further observed that the opposite party-wife failed to establish by convincing evidence that the petitioner-husband treated her with cruelty. The conduct of the opposite party-wife in not doing the house-hold work in her husband’s house, misbehaving with the husband and ill-treating her in-laws’ family members and also entertaining male friends in her bedroom in the absence of her husband had caused cruelty to the petitioner-husband. The learned trial Judge further held that the opposite party-wife failed to establish by convincing, cogent, clear and acceptable evidence that the petitioner-husband and his family members treated her with cruelty. The learned trial Judge allowed Civil Proceeding No. 123 of 2007 filed by the petitioner-husband and passed a decree of divorce for dissolution of marriage between the parties and further directed for payment of Rs. 2, 00,000/- towards permanent alimony by the petitioner-husband to the opposite party-wife. The learned trial Judge further held that since the opposite party-wife would get permanent alimony, her claim for monthly maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. should not be accepted. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge dismissed Civil Proceedings No. 541 of 2008 as well as Criminal Proceeding No. 389 of 2008. 5.MATA No. 30 of 2011 has been filed by opposite party-wife for enhancement of the permanent alimony whereas MATA No. 51 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioner-husband for setting aside the direction regarding payment of permanent alimony by the learned trial Judge. 6.At the stage of admission of MATA No. 30 of 2011, the learned counsel for the opposite party-wife confined his challenge to the quantum of permanent alimony granted by the learned trial Judge. On 1.7.2014 an order was passed in MATA No. 30 of 2011 directing the petitioner-husband to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) in the shape of Demand Draft in favour of the opposite party-wife within a period of four weeks. That order was not complied with by the petitioner-husband and several adjournments were granted on the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband to comply the order. On 13.1.2015 for realising the amount of Rs. 1 lakh, this Court directed for the attachment of the two-wheeler motor garage of the petitioner-husband and the police was also directed to apprehend the petitioner-husband and to report compliance. On 27.1.2015 the petitioner-husband was produced in custody before us by Sub-Inspector of Kujanga Police Station. On 13.1.2015 for realising the amount of Rs. 1 lakh, this Court directed for the attachment of the two-wheeler motor garage of the petitioner-husband and the police was also directed to apprehend the petitioner-husband and to report compliance. On 27.1.2015 the petitioner-husband was produced in custody before us by Sub-Inspector of Kujanga Police Station. The petitioner-husband tendered three demand drafts of State Bank of India standing in the name of the opposite party-wife totaling to Rs. 1 lakh. The three drafts were handed over to the opposite party-wife who was present in Court with her counsel. The opposite party-husband was set at liberty. Then dispute arose regarding the details of the landed properties standing in the name of petitioner-husband and his father for which vide order dated 23.2.2015, we directed the learned counsel for the opposite party-wife to file an affidavit indicating the details of the landed properties. We also directed the concerned Sub-Registrar not to record any sale deed in respect of the landed property belonging to the petitioner-husband and his father. On 11.3.2015 the learned counsel for the opposite party-wife tendered before us documentary evidence regarding immovable properties standing in the name of petitioner-husband as well as his father which were taken on record. We had a long deliberation with the couple not only on 11.3.2015 but also on 26.3.2015 to decide the quantum of permanent alimony. On 6.4.2015 during course of deliberation, the petitioner-husband agreed to pay Rs. 3,50,000/- to the opposite party-wife out of which he had already paid to Rs. 1 lakh and accordingly we directed the petitioner-husband to come with a draft of Rs. 2,50,000/- in the name of respondent-wife. On 7.5.2015 the petitioner-husband produced seven bank drafts of State Bank of India standing in the name of opposite party-wife totaling to Rs. 2,50,000/-. All the drafts were handed over to the opposite party-wife who was present in Court with her counsel. 7.Since both the appeals were confined to adjudicate the quantum of permanent alimony and as per the mutual agreement between the parties, it was settled at Rs. 2,50,000/-. All the drafts were handed over to the opposite party-wife who was present in Court with her counsel. 7.Since both the appeals were confined to adjudicate the quantum of permanent alimony and as per the mutual agreement between the parties, it was settled at Rs. 3,50,000/- and the entire amount was paid by the petitioner-husband to the opposite party-wife, we dispose of both the appeals holding that the decree of divorce as was passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in the impugned judgment dissolving the marriage between petitioner-husband Rabindra Kumar Swain and opposite party-wife Namita Rout is hereby confirmed and also fixing the permanent alimony at Rs. 3,50,000/- as agreed upon between the parties, which has already been paid by the petitioner-husband to the opposite party-wife In the result, both the MATA applications are disposed of . Applications disposed of.