JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. The instant appeal stands directed against the judgment rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, on 14.07.2009 in H.M.A. Petition No. 27 of 2008, whereby it refused the according qua the petitioner, a decree for dissolution of his marital ties with the respondent. 2. The petitioner/appellant herein standing aggrieved by the rendition of the learned Additional District Judge, hence concerts to reverse it by preferring an appeal therefrom before this Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claimed the respondent to be his legally wedded wife. Out of their wedlock two female children have born in the years 1986 and 1990 respectively and they are living with the respondent. It is averred that the petitioner was captain in Indian Army and the respondent was a regular Govt. servant in Education department at the time of her marriage. When he was posted in Hussainiwala Border in Firozpur in “operational Trident” and the family was not allowed to be kept there due to which, the respondent started living with her mother and occasionally visited his house. He provided each and every necessities of life to the respondent but she was not at all interested in him. Whenever, he used to come to Chamba on holidays, the respondent used to go to her parents' house on the same day or some times one day prior to his coming at Chamba and thus due to her this act, he had to stay alone at his own house during the holidays and only on his repeated requests she used to come back to the matrimonial house but that too not for more than two days. The petitioner has further pleaded and claimed that the second child was born in the year 1990 and after her birth, the respondent without any reasonable cause and without his consent left the matrimonial house and started living with her mother. However, the petitioner and his mother tried to bring her back and convince her that she should live in her matrimonial house. It is averred that in May, 1996, his nephew Chandan Koushik expired in an accident due to which the people from the locality and society used to come to his house to condole but she used to watch TV in her bedroom and did not participate in the mourning. It is averred that in May, 1996, his nephew Chandan Koushik expired in an accident due to which the people from the locality and society used to come to his house to condole but she used to watch TV in her bedroom and did not participate in the mourning. The matter was reported to her mother but on next day, her brother came to his house and took all her belongings without his consent and she also left the matrimonial house without any reasonable cause and his consent. Since then she has failed to join his company and completely deserted him, although, he and his family members tried to reconcile the matter. It is further averred that his other nephews died in the years 1999 and 2001 but the respondent or her family members did not come to his house. On 15.9.2006 his mother also died but nobody from the respondent's house came to his house. It is further claimed that in the year 2003, on his persuasion, a meeting with the respondent was organized through one Shri Chaman Sharma for conciliation of the matter but in vain. It is averred that he has retired from the Indian Army on 1.2.2002 as Colonel and undergone mental pain and suffering due to the acts of the respondent, who has failed to join his company since 1996 and as such, the marriage has broken down irreparably. Hence, he sought decree for divorce for dissolution of his marital ties with the respondent. 4. The respondent contested the petition and filed reply. In the reply, the respondent has admitted the relationship between the parties including the off spring as pleaded in the petition, however, the respondent has further pleaded and claimed that she had been living at her matrimonial house alongwith her daughters till date she was forcibly thrown out from the matrimonial house by the petitioner and his family members. She has pleaded that she being loyal Hindu wife served the petitioner as well as his family members like a humble daughter-in-law. It is also alleged that she maintained her daughters as well as her mother in law from her own hard earned money. It is alleged that she was maltreated by the petitioner and his family members. She has pleaded that she being loyal Hindu wife served the petitioner as well as his family members like a humble daughter-in-law. It is also alleged that she maintained her daughters as well as her mother in law from her own hard earned money. It is alleged that she was maltreated by the petitioner and his family members. Her second daughter was born to her in the year 1991 and after her birth, the petitioner got annoyed as she had not given birth to a male child. It is alleged by her that the petitioner used to demand dowry by saying that since he is a captain in Army, her parents must provide good car alongwith diamond button on his coat. She has also alleged that the petitioner had given beatings to her elder daughter and in that process, her ear and face were hurt so badly that she had to be rushed to the District Hospital, where she was treated for her injuries by the lady doctor. She has further alleged that Chandan Koushik expired in May, 1996 and at that time relatives of the petitioner advised her not to disclose it to her mother in law who was an old lady and then the relatives along with her mother in law went to Nahan for condolence where the respondent also arrived but she was assigned the job of caretaker of house at Chamba. It is also alleged by her that after return from Nahan to Chamba, the petitioner and his family members started harassing and maltreating her and gave beatings to her and turned her and her minor daughters out from the matrimonial house. Thereafter, she requested number of times to the petitioner to allow her to live in the matrimonial house, but all efforts went to vain as the petitioner and his family members did not allow her to live in the matrimonial house. She has further alleged that one of the petitioner's cousin sister namely Rajnish Sharma invited her to Hotel Irawati, where the petitioner was present who forced her to sign customary divorce papers, which she flatly refused. Even prior to that, two notices along with customary divorce deed were sent to her which were never answered by her. She has denied the allegations of cruelty and desertion as pleaded by the petitioner and prayed for the dismissal of the petition. 5. Even prior to that, two notices along with customary divorce deed were sent to her which were never answered by her. She has denied the allegations of cruelty and desertion as pleaded by the petitioner and prayed for the dismissal of the petition. 5. The petitioner/appellant herein filed rejoinder to the reply of the respondent, wherein, he denied the contents of the reply and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the petition. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the respondent has failed to join the company of the petitioner and completely deserted him as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the respondent after solemnization of the marriage has treated the petitioner with cruelty as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the petitioner has suppressed the material facts from the court, as alleged, if so, its effects? OPR 4. Relief. 7. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned Additional District Judge, he dismissed the petition of the petitioner/appellant herein. 8. Now the petitioner/appellant herein has instituted the instant appeal before this Court wherein he assails the findings recorded by the learned Addl. District Judge in his impugned judgment and decree. 9. The appellant herein/petitioner tied nuptial marital knots with the respondent herein in September, 1985. Two female children were born from their wedlock respectively in the year 1986 and 1991. The alienation of the respondent from the matrimonial company of the appellant herein/petitioner, stands averred to commence in the year 1991 whereat the respondent herein delivered a female child whereafter she is averred to without any reasonable cause besides without the consent and against the wish of the petitioner/appellant herein, depart to her parental home. Apart from the aforesaid factum of the respondent herein deserting the matrimonial company of the appellant herein, the latter has averred qua in May, 1996 when his nephew met his end in an accident, hers remaining confined to a room whereat she continued to watch television rather than attend to people who had come to his residence for condoling the demise of his nephew Chandan Koushik. Though the apathetic attitude of the respondent herein was complained by the petitioner to her mother yet it sequeled the respondent's brothers to come to the matrimonial home of the respondent whereat they without the consent of the petitioner/appellant herein along with her belongings took the respondent with them to her parental home. Since, the departure of the respondent herein from her matrimonial home in May, 1996, the petitioner avers of the respondent, despite his concerting to regain her matrimonial company, she portraying stark obduracy in joining his company at her matrimonial home. Even in the years 1999 and 2001 whereat the demise of the nephews of the petitioner occurred, the latter avers qua neither the respondent nor her family members visiting him to condole their demise. He continues to aver of on 15th September, 2006, whereat the demise of his mother occurred neither the respondent nor her family members visiting his home to condole her demise. He also avers qua the respondent not permitting him to meet his children. He avers qua in the year 2003, on his persuasion through the aegis of one Chaman Sharma, a meeting with the respondent stood organized, for bringing amity in their relations yet his efforts in the aforesaid regard proving abortive. The prolonged separation since the year 1996 upto the date of institution of the instant petition, of the respondent from the matrimonial company of the petitioner stands espoused by him to ipso facto connote of their marital relations standing irretrievably broken down, whereupon he seeks dissolution of his marital ties with the respondent besides obviously contends qua, on score of desertion besides concomitant mental cruelty perpetrated upon him, his thereupon standing entitled to a decree of dissolution of his marital relations with the respondent. 10. The aforesaid averments constituted in the petition by the petitioner also stand communicated by him in his testification. His testification as also the averments constituted in the petition also stand corroborated by PW-2 and PW-3. The respondent herein for succoring her repudiation to the averments constituted in her reply to the apposite petition has testified as RW- 1. For meteing corroboration thereto she has depended upon the testimonies of RW-2, RW-3 and RW-4. Since, the evidence adduced by the contestants herebefore does succor their respective espousals hence this Court is enjoined to with discerning circumspect care unearth therefrom the truth carried therein. For meteing corroboration thereto she has depended upon the testimonies of RW-2, RW-3 and RW-4. Since, the evidence adduced by the contestants herebefore does succor their respective espousals hence this Court is enjoined to with discerning circumspect care unearth therefrom the truth carried therein. However, before proceeding to discern the respective veracities of the evidence adduced herebefore by the contestants in substantiation of their respective espousals encapsulated in their respective pleadings, the effect of the alleged apathy of the respondent herein emanable from hers purportedly not attending to mourners, who visited the house of the appellant herein/petitioner, for condoling the demise of his nephew which occurred in the year 1996 besides her apathy emanable from hers not visiting her matrimonial home in the years 1999 and 2001 whereat also the demise of the nephews of the appellant herein occurred, lastly the effect of the apathy of the respondent herein to in September, 2006 not visit the house of the petitioner/appellant herein to mourn the demise of his mother, has to be pronounced upon, significantly when the aforesaid purported misdemeanors of the respondent herein beset the appellant herein with mental trauma. The effect of the aforesaid purported misdemeanors of the respondent herein even if assumingly carry any vigorous sinew, their tenacity omnibusly wanes with an imminent display of the appellant herein instituting the instant petition in the year 2007. The immense hiatus since the purported misdemeanors of the respondent herein vis-a-vis the institution of the instant petition by the appellant herein brings to the fore an inevitable inference of the appellant herein thereupon condoning the aforesaid purported misdemeanors which he ascribes to the respondent herein. Also as a corollary, their effect, if any, upon the mental psyche of the petitioner cannot be construed to be holding any enormity or gravity in both potency or in sinewed vigour wherefrom a deduction is derivable of theirs not hence purveying to the appellant herein a formidable weapon for seeking dissolution of his marital ties with the respondent. Contrarily, for reasons aforestated the appellant herein is to be construed to be condoning the purported misdemeanors of the respondent herein besides at the time of institution of the petition at hand their concomitant bearing upon his psyche losing effect. 11. Contrarily, for reasons aforestated the appellant herein is to be construed to be condoning the purported misdemeanors of the respondent herein besides at the time of institution of the petition at hand their concomitant bearing upon his psyche losing effect. 11. Dehors the aforesaid, the appellant herein has conceived a ground for annulling his marital ties with the respondent herein on the score of the respondent for an inordinately prolonged duration of time alienating herself from his matrimonial company whereupon he concerts to erect an argument qua his marital ties with the respondent herein standing irretrievably broken down wherefrom he on the anvil of a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Durga Parasanna Tripathy versus Arundhati Tripathy, AIR 2005 SC 3297 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court on surging forth of evidence therebefore of the marital partners thereat living separately for 14 years besides prevalence thereat of evidence in portrayal of concerts made by the husband to retrieve his errant spouse to her matrimonial home proving abortive had thereupon construed qua their marriage standing irretrievably broken down, leading it to conclude of thereupon the husband proving the animus deserdendi of the errant spouse beside concluded qua given the prolonged estranged embittered relations inter se them, the refusal of a decree of dissolution of their marital ties begetting no fruitful purpose significantly when their matrimony was irreparable. Also he has depended upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, AIR 2006 SC 1675 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held qua with proof emanating qua irretrievable break down of marriage, besides proof erupting qua it standing damaged beyond repair warranting incorporation thereof in the relevant statute as a ground for dissolution of marriage, for incorporation whereof it made recommendations also it on emanation of proof aforesaid concluded qua the prolonged separation of the spouses ipso facto purveying succor to an inference of their marital ties standing irretrievably broken down whereupon it annulled the marital ties inter se the contestants thereat. The aforesaid pronouncements also stand pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Vengadachalam versus K.C. Palanisamy and others, (2005)7 SCC 352 and Statish Sitole v. Ganga, AIR 2008 SC 3093 . The aforesaid pronouncements also stand pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Vengadachalam versus K.C. Palanisamy and others, (2005)7 SCC 352 and Statish Sitole v. Ganga, AIR 2008 SC 3093 . The factum of prolonged separation of the spouses thereat provided impetus to the Hon'ble Apex Court to conclude of any concert to beget continuation of marital relations inter se spouses thereat by refusing to annul their marital ties per se tantamounting to cruelty whereupon it proceeded to annul the marital ties inter se the contesting parties thereat. 12. The learned trial Court by delving deep into the evidence adduced therebefore by the parties at contest had hence distinguished the ratio decidendi propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid citations whereupon it concluded of the version propounded in the testification of the petitioner/appellant herein standing gripped with falsity whereas the contentions reared by the respondent holding a virtue of truth. It also concluded of with the petitioner/appellant herein not adducing cogent evidence in display of the respondent herein while hers holding an animus deserdendi hers hence separating from his company, constraining it to hold of hence the petitioner/appellant herein contriving besides engineering a ground for divorce. The inference recorded by the learned trial Court of the petitioner/appellant herein inventing a ground for divorce stood anvilled upon the factum of his transmitting a notice, comprised in Ex.RB, to the respondent wherewithin he beseeched her to facilitate annulment of their marital ties by by their conjointly resorting to customary law also with enunciations occurring therein of the petitioner/appellant herein aspiring to solemnize a second marriage, reiteratedly whereupon it erected an inference of the petitioner contriving a ground for divorce. The aforesaid exhibits do bely the espousal of the petitioner/appellant herein qua his concerting to reclaim the matrimonial company of the respondent herein. The aforesaid exhibits do bely the espousal of the petitioner/appellant herein qua his concerting to reclaim the matrimonial company of the respondent herein. Further more the deposition of RW-4, an adult daughter begotten from the wedlock of the contesting parties hereat where within she succors the contentions held in the pleadings of the respondent herein beside imputes fault to the petitioner/appellant herein, provided impetus to the learned trial Court to form a conclusion of the appellant herein/petitioner derelicting to preserve his matrimony with the respondent herein, rather his aberrant behaviour bolstering the departure of the respondent herein to her parental home wherefrom it concluded of the appellant herein failing to prove the trite factum of the respondent herein with an animus deserdendi departing to her parental home. 13. Be that as it may, dehors the tenacity of the conclusion formed by the learned trial Court also dehors the factum of the petitioner/appellant herein assumingly contriving a ground for annulment of his marital ties with respondent herein nonetheless the prolonged separation of the respondent from the matrimonial company of the appellant herein when stands unflinchingly proven also when their relations have developed acute estrangement besides stand painfully embittered also with the adult daughter of the contestants hereat imputing cruelty to the petitioner/appellant herein constitute hard realistic evidentiary data for bolstering a deduction qua the marriage inter se the parties at contest standing irretrievably broken down also it hence being unevacuable whereupon qua refusal of a decree of divorce would be a futile attempt to revive their capsized matrimony rather would perpetuate torment upon both of them. The learned trial Court has remained oblivious to the hard evidentiary realities as stand evinced from the record existing hereat rather it by drawing certain subtle distinctivities inter se the factual scenario prevailing hereat vis-a-vis the scenario prevailing in the citations relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has refused to annul their marital ties, refusal whereof is a futile attempt to preserve their dismantled marital relation. 14. 14. The refusal by the learned trial Court to accord a decree qua annulment of martial ties inter se the petitioner and the respondent has erupted on its remaining unmindful of (a) suggestion put to the petitioner/appellant by the counsel for the respondent while holding him to cross-examination, where within articulations are held qua existence of temperamental inconsistencies inter se them, suggestion whereof stood answered in the affirmative by the petitioner; (b) the effect of the aforesaid suggestion and the consequent answers in affirmation thereto rendered by the petitioner blunts the effect of the suggestion subsequently put to the petitioner by the counsel for the respondent during the course of his subjecting him to crossexamination qua his willingness to accept the respondent at her matrimonial home, besides the answer in the negative purveyed thereto by the petitioner holds no leverage to the respondent herein to contend qua the petitioner contriving a ground to annul his marital ties with her. The effect of the aforesaid evidentiary data existing herebefore is qua their existing mental incompatibility inter se the married spouses whereas mental compatibility is imperative for flourishing conviviality in matrimony. Since the institution of marriage would flourish only on survival of affability inter se married spouses whereas with affability inter se both provenly ebbing given their prolonged embittered estranged relations also when the adult daughter of the petitioner imputes cruelty to the petitioner whereas she along with her sister besides with her mother are enjoined to stay in harmony with the petitioner/appellant herein at his home, matrimonial harmony whereof when has suffered a deep fracture beside fissure, any refusal of a decree for annulment of marital ties inter se the petitioner/appellant and the respondent herein would be a futile exercise also would perpetuate agony and torment upon both. For obviating the aforesaid causality, it is deemed fit and proper to disregard the subtle distinctivities prevaling in the factual matrix propounded in the citations of the Hon'ble Apex Court vis-a-vis the factual matrix prevailing hereat rather with the predominant fact of both holding prolonged estranged relations whereupon their marriage has foundered constitute the solitary consideration for annulling their martial ties. Also it appears of the respondent not willing to join her matrimonial home significantly when despite this Court ordering on 6.9.2016 for hers recording her presence herebefore for facilitating this Court to beget a reconciliation inter se her and the appellant, hers omitting to record her presence hereat on 20.9.2016, omission whereof spurs an inference qua hers being uninterested in reviving her marital ties with the petitioner/appellant herein hence her aspiration also warrants vindication. 15. For the foregoing reasons, it is apt to clinchingly conclude of with the marital ties of the petitioner/appellant herein with the respondent herein standing broken down irretrievably hence, the rendition of a decree of severance of their marital ties would be both just and expedient. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the marriage inter se the petitioner/appellant and the respondent herein is ordered to be dissolved subject to the appellant herein/petitioner paying from 1st November, 2016 per mensem permanent alimony to her to the extent of 35% of the pensionary benefits received by him, defrayment whereof be made by his remitting per mensem in her savings bank account the aforesaid quantum of alimony assessed vis-a-vis the respondent herein, particulars whereof be supplied within one week from today by the learned counsel for the respondent herein to the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant herein, further subject to his within two months from today preparing FDRs in the name of his adult daughters respectively each in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs Only) towards the expenses of their marriage, FDRs whereof shall be deposited by the appellant herein in the Registry of this Court. In sequel, the judgment and decree impugned before this Court is quashed and set aside. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.