JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Hrishikesh Roy, J. The efforts to resolve this Matrimonial dispute through mediation failed and thus the case is now posted for adjudication by the Court. The appellant (husband) is represented by the learned Counsel Mr. K. Sarma, while the respondent (wife) is represented by the learned Counsel Mr. A.R. Sikdar. 2. The challenge in this Matrimonial Appeal is to the judgment dated 17.03.2012 (Annexure-2), in the F.C. (Civil) Case No.270/2008, whereby the husband’s application for judicial separation, filed Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1955 Act’) was dismissed by the Principal Judge of the Family Court, Kamrup, Guwahati. 3. The appellant had served as a Govt. Doctor but recently he superannuated from service from the post of Joint Director of Health Services, Assam. The respondent has no earning source and she is dependent on the monthly maintenance, received from the husband. The parties were married on 03.02.1996 and a male child was born to them on 13.01.1997. However they are living apart since 24.04.2008. 4. The husband pleaded for judicial separation on the allegation of unbecoming conduct by the respondent (wife). But the learned Family Court after evaluation of the evidence adduced by the parties, opined that the allegation of cruelty by the wife, could not be proved by the husband. In fact the evidence supported the contrary case pleaded by the wife before the Family Court. Thus, the application for judicial separation, filed by the husband was found to be meritless and the same was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 17.03.2012 (Annexure-2). 5. The learned counsel Mr. K. Sarma, representing the appellant does not dwell much on the merit of the judgment but he submits that the parties have lived apart since 24.4.2008 and there is no possibility of the revival of the marital relationship. Therefore he makes a fervent plea for a decree of judicial separation for the estranged spouse. 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel Mr. A.R. Sikdar for the respondent (wife) submits that the primary concern of the wife is the welfare of their son, who is now major and he is quite keen on resumption of normal ties by his parents. Therefore the counsel submits that the wife is willing forego the bitter experience of yore and is willing to reside with the appellant for the sake of their son. 7. Therefore the counsel submits that the wife is willing forego the bitter experience of yore and is willing to reside with the appellant for the sake of their son. 7. When a Court is confronted with breakdown of marital relationship, the first usual effort is to attempt re-conciliation of the parties for continuation of the marital bond. But we find that multiple attempts at re-conciliation have failed to yield any result and the attempted off-Court resolution through mediation have also ended in failure. 8. In the present case, without referring to the circumstances which compelled the wife to live apart from her husband, we can take judicial notice of the fact that the wife is staying separately at Dudhnoi since 24.04.2008, while the husband has lived separately since then and moved from place to place as a Govt. Doctor and after he superannuated on 30.5.2015, he is residing permanently at his home in Guwahati. Such long separation has obviously created an irretrievable gap between the two spouses. The circumstances suggest that the marital relationship has fallen apart beyond repair. In such situation, the refusal by the Court to severe the marital tie will amount to cruelty, for the suffering parties. 9. The son who has attained majority since then, naturally wish that the parents remain together but the circumstances of the case indicate that the matrimonial bond has been ruptured beyond repair and it is a clear case of irretrievable break down of marriage. The respondent (wife) for the sake of her son, is prepared to forgive the past but such re-conciliatory attitude is found missing from the husbands’ side. Therefore the inevitable conclusion has to be drawn that the relationship is emotionally dead and the marriage is beyond salvation. 10. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that a decree of judicial separation will better serve the cause of justice in the present case. 11. The appellant has served as a govt. doctor and recently he superannuated from service on 30.5.2015, from the post of Joint Director of Health Services. Currently he is drawing pension of around Rs.40,000/- P.M. and that apart, he is also earning a good amount of rental income, from his Guwahati property. We further find that monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- was ordered to be paid by the husband, when the wife complained of inadequacy of maintenance allowance, in her Crl. Revision No.64/2013. Currently he is drawing pension of around Rs.40,000/- P.M. and that apart, he is also earning a good amount of rental income, from his Guwahati property. We further find that monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- was ordered to be paid by the husband, when the wife complained of inadequacy of maintenance allowance, in her Crl. Revision No.64/2013. In this proceeding, the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara took note of the professional earning of the doctor and his rental income from the prime property at Guwahati. The receipt of substantial sale price by the husband, through transaction of landed property at North Guwahati, was also noted by the Court. On that basis Rs.20,000/- P.M. was ordered to be paid, as maintenance to the wife, by the order dated 20.8.2014, by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara. These findings are carefully noted by us. 12. As on date, the appellant is no more in Govt. service but he is receiving pension. His other earnings can also be taken into account by the Court, to determine the maintenance amount for the non-earning spouse. The Crl. Revision Petition No.389/2015 filed by the husband against the maintenance ordered by the lower Court is pending in the High Court for last 2 years but we find from the order sheet of the case that, no stay of the monthly maintenance was ever ordered by the Revisional forum. On the other hand, the respondent (wife) has no source of earning and is entirely dependent on the maintenance received from her estranged husband. Therefore while ordering judicial separation, it is necessary for us to substantially secure her financial future. 13. Prompted by such consideration, while issuing the decree of judicial separation, we direct the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.20 lakh (Rupees twenty lakhs) to the respondent (wife), by way of permanent alimony. It is appropriate to record here that the alimony amount is quantified with cooperation of both the learned counsel. The 1st installment of Rs.5 lakh (Rupees five lakhs) should be paid on or before 31.01.2017 and the next three installments of Rs.5 lakh (Rupees five lakhs) each should be paid, at the interval of two months. Each installment of Rs.5 lakh is to paid by demand draft, drawn in favour of the respondent (wife), from a scheduled Bank. It is ordered accordingly. 14. Each installment of Rs.5 lakh is to paid by demand draft, drawn in favour of the respondent (wife), from a scheduled Bank. It is ordered accordingly. 14. With the above order, this Matrimonial Appeal stands disposed of, with the understanding that the appellant will now withdraw the pending Crl. Revision Petition No.389/2015, on account of today’s order. In other words, with the stipulation of permanent alimony, the requirement of paying monthly maintenance will not arise. On production of this order by the husband, the Crl. Revision Petition No.389/2015 will be disposed of by the Court, by appropriately interfering with the fixation of the monthly maintenance, ordered by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara, in the Crl. Revision No.64/2013. 15. With our order for decree of judicial separation, we quash the impugned judgment of 17.03.2012 (Annexure-2), in the F.C. (Civil) Case No.270/2008, rendered by the Principal Judge of the Family Court, Kamrup, Guwahati. Accordingly the Appeal stands allowed. No cost. 16. The Registry should send a copy of this order to the concerned Court along with the LCR of the case.