JUDGMENT : K.S. JHAVERI, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant, original respondent, has challenged the judgment and decree dated 15.2.2011 passed in Family Suit No. 715 of 2007 by the Family Court No. 2, Ahmedabad, whereby the Family Court has allowed the said divorce petition and ordered that the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and respondent has been declared to be dissolved on the ground of cruelty and desertion under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The facts, in brief, are that the marriage between the present appellant and respondent solemnized on 18.1.1989 according to Hindu rites and rituals and out of the said wedlock, two children were born. The relationship between the appellant and the respondent was stated to be strained. Therefore, the respondent-husband filed divorce petition being Family Suit No. 715 of 2007 before the Family Court. The Family Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 15.2.2011 allowed the said petition. Hence this appeal is filed by the appellant-wife. 2. Learned Advocate for the respondent-husband has brought to our notice that though the judgment and decree is passed by the Family Court on 15.2.2011 but the present appeal is filed by the appellant-wife only on 7th June, 2012 i.e. after about one year and three months. He also submitted that the respondent-husband after waiting for one year has now remarried and is established with his new family. In support of his contentions, the learned Advocate for the respondent-husband has produced on record the photographs and agreement of marriage. 3. Admittedly, it appears that there was a delay of about one year and three months in filing this appeal. Further, it appears that after passing of the impugned order, the respondent-husband waited for considerable time about one year and thereafter the respondent-husband contracted second marriage with one Alkaben. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts of the matter, we are of the opinion that it will not be appropriate to allow this appeal at this stage. However, we suggested the learned Advocate for the appellant-wife to take a reasonable amount towards full and final settlement, which he has declined. 4. It would be beneficial to reproduce paragraph Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, which reads as under: "7. The petitioner has filed affidavit vide Exh. 13. However, we suggested the learned Advocate for the appellant-wife to take a reasonable amount towards full and final settlement, which he has declined. 4. It would be beneficial to reproduce paragraph Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, which reads as under: "7. The petitioner has filed affidavit vide Exh. 13. As per his statement, his marriage was solemnized as per the Hindu rites and rituals on 18.1.1989; two sons were born as a result of marriage; elder son Naisarg is aged about 19 years and younger son Manan is aged about 15 years. Both the sons were under the custody of the petitioner and were studying in English medium higher secondary school since last four years, both the spouses were staying separate. As per the say of the petitioner, the nature of the respondent was so aggressive and without any reason, she was quarrelling with family members of the petitioner. That without informing the petitioner, she was frequently leaving her matrimonial home for her parental home at Rajula and such incidents were happened for about five time and sheliad left for Rajula. The petitioner at the cost of his business made his best attempt to call back the respondent; the distance from Ahmedabad to Rajula is 300 kms., he suffered great economic loss for his frequent visits at Rajula. As per the statement of the petitioner, he had to maintain his two sons and old parents and the attitude of the respondent with his parents was not good and no care of the parents was taken by the respondent of the petitioner. She was using very bad language for his parents and giving taunts to them. The petitioner had three sisters and all of them were married and they were residing at their in-laws house and had never disturbed the married life of the petitioner. Occasionally, they were visiting their parental home, however, just to harass the petitioner as well as sisters and other family members including his parents, false police complaint was lodged by the respondent with a view to harass the petitioner. That in the beginning of 2001 along with two sons without any sufficient reason of cause, she left for her matrimonial home. As the study of the children very disturbed, the petitioner approached the respondent at Rajula to call back her. That in the beginning of 2001 along with two sons without any sufficient reason of cause, she left for her matrimonial home. As the study of the children very disturbed, the petitioner approached the respondent at Rajula to call back her. He tried his level best to persuade the respondent and after obtaining her consent, he returned back with son viz. Naisarg at Ahmedabad. As per the say of the petitioner, with the inspiration of her parents and brother Mukeshbhai just to harass the petitioner, the respondent lodged the complaint before Rajula Police Station on 13.3.2002 and its registered as C.R. No. 27 of 2002 under Sections 363, 366 and 214 of the Indian Penal Code. That being aggrieved by the complaint lodged by the respondent, the petitioner filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 2048 of 2002 before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, wherein compromise was arrived at between the parties. Pursis was passed under their signatures on 19.6.2002 in the above stated criminal miscellaneous application before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. Compromise pursis was notarized before the Notary. It was declared by the respondent in the pursis that she would stay with the parents of the petitioner and the family members in a peaceful manner without any grievance. The complaint lodged by the respondent before Rajula Police Station was quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. He has also produced certified copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat quashing the complaint lodged by the respondent. It is further stated that after settlement and compromise with the respondent, she returned back to her matrimonial home for short period, the behavior of the respondent was well and appropriate, but after passing of some time, she again started her dispute with the petitioner. There was pressure to stay separate from his parents. Nature of the parents of the petitioner was so simple and therefore, they were pleased to permit the petitioner to stay separate from them just to satisfy the respondent, and therefore, he had rented one flat No. 201 at Vrushabh Flat and started to live with the respondent separately. The parents of the petitioner were suffering great difficulty without assistance of the petitioner. However, started living separate from his parents, there was no change in the nature of the respondent. The parents of the petitioner were suffering great difficulty without assistance of the petitioner. However, started living separate from his parents, there was no change in the nature of the respondent. She started to damage prestige of the petitioner frequently and he was threatened by her and mental torture was given to him. It was threatened that she would fall down from terrace and she was happy to obtain divorce from the petitioner. Her parents should be called by the petitioner and divorce should be passed by him. He was mentally tortured by the respondent, and therefore, very bad effect was caused upon the children of the misbehavior committed by her. Just to save himself, he had also requested by making an application in writing to Social worker, Family Adviser Centre, Sabarmati on 22.1.2005. It appears that copy of the application submitted by him was also produced on record. It appears that above stated Adviser Centre had also written letter to the father-in-law of the petitioner for settlement of issues between the parties on 12.1.2005. It appears from the record that on 3.2.2005, the petitioner came to know that certain medicines for fever was taken by the respondent and she was put in a trouble, and therefore, the petitioner immediately came to his home and she was shifted to Sanjivani Hospital for her treatment. Dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate on 7.2.2005 and copy of the dying declaration is also produced on record. She has made a statement before the Executive Magistrate that she was under mental depression; she was suffering from fever; on the day of incident, she was not forced by anybody to take medicines; she has not made any attempt for committing suicide by herself as she was staying alone and she was under the mental pressure and she had no knowledge, what had, happened suddenly. She has further stated before the Executive Magistrate that there was no physical or mental cruelty given to her. It also appears that after shifting at Rajula, the respondent had lodged complaint against the petitioner and his family members. Her complaint was transferred to Vatva Police Station being C.R. No. 158/2005, charge-sheet was also filed by the police against the accused and copy of the charge-sheet, which was provided to the petitioner by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, is on record. The petitioner again preferred one Criminal Misc. Her complaint was transferred to Vatva Police Station being C.R. No. 158/2005, charge-sheet was also filed by the police against the accused and copy of the charge-sheet, which was provided to the petitioner by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, is on record. The petitioner again preferred one Criminal Misc. Application No. 13999 of 2006 for quashing the complaint before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat and copy of the same was produced on record. As per the statement of the petitioner, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat was pleased to pass interim order staying the proceeding of the Criminal case pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Ahmedabad. The petitioner has also produced copy of the interim order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. The petitioner is the only son of his parents. It was his duty to take due care of his old aged parents. No Cooperation was given by the respondent to the petitioner. It is also declared by the petitioner that due to her misbehavior, children were badly affected. It is averred by the petitioner on oath that no physical or mental torture was given by him to the respondent nor he has tried at any point of time to give any poison by the respondent. The attitude of the respondent has cause mental torture to the petitioner. Now he had no faith in the respondent that she would not commit any misbehavior to the petitioner or his parents including the other family members. It is apprehended by him that it was not safe physically and mentally to continue his married life with the respondent under the circumstances. As per his statement without any cause or sufficient reason, the respondent has tried to put him in judicial custody, and therefore, he has decided to obtain divorce from the respondent. 8. It appears from the record that the respondent did remain present before the Conciliator of this Court and under the signature of the parties along with the Conciliator 20 days time was required for them for further conciliation. This pursis was put on record by this Court. Vide Exh. 37, the respondent has requested to permit him to engage lawyer to defend herself, the prayer of the respondent was granted by this Court permitting her to engage her lawyer vide Exh. 37. She has requested to adjourn the matter in the interest of justice. This pursis was put on record by this Court. Vide Exh. 37, the respondent has requested to permit him to engage lawyer to defend herself, the prayer of the respondent was granted by this Court permitting her to engage her lawyer vide Exh. 37. She has requested to adjourn the matter in the interest of justice. On 2.17.2010, same prayer was also granted by this Court. The learned Advocate has filed his Vakipatra vide Exh. 38 on behalf of the respondent before this Court. The Conciliator has submitted in writing that there was no settlement of issues between the parties. It appears that sufficient opportunities were given to the respondent, no cross-examination of the petitioner was underwent by the respondent, nor any evidence is led by her to contest this petition. On a request made by the petitioner vide Exh. 40, the right to lead evidence was closed of the respondent. 9. Here, I would like to refer the case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, reported in, AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1675. In this case divorce was prayed by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The wife had initiated several civil and criminal proceedings against her husband. Numerous proceedings were initiated by the wife indicating her resolve to make life of her husband a miserable hell. The husband also initiating same. The parties living separately for more than ten years. The marriage thus has been wrecked beyond hope of salvage. Public interest and interest of all concerned therefore lies in declaring defunct dejure what is already defunct de facto. Keeping the marriage legally alive is obviously conducive to immorality and potentially more prejudicial to public interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to dissolve the marriage." 5. Having carefully gone through the discussions made by the Family Court, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Family Court is just and proper. No interference is required to be called for by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, considering the interest of the appellant-wife it is directed that if the appellant-wife gives a notice to the respondent-husband on or before 1st September, 2015 stating therein that she is prepared to accept Rs. 15,00,000 (Rupees fifteen lakh) as permanent alimony against all her claims and she will withdraw all litigations filed by her. However, considering the interest of the appellant-wife it is directed that if the appellant-wife gives a notice to the respondent-husband on or before 1st September, 2015 stating therein that she is prepared to accept Rs. 15,00,000 (Rupees fifteen lakh) as permanent alimony against all her claims and she will withdraw all litigations filed by her. If the appellant-wife gives such a notice to the respondent-husband within the stipulated time, the respondent-husband shall pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 15,00,000 (Rupees fifteen lakh) to the appellant-wife within a period of three months thereafter. It is clarified that if the appellant-wife does not give the notice, within the stipulated time, as stated above, this order will not come into operation. Subject to the compliance of the above directions, the present appeal stands disposed.