JUDGMENT : Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Vijayapur, dated 16.11.2017 in Matrimonial Case No.110/2016, whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court, Vijayapur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’ for short) dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner-husband under Section 13(1)(ia),(ib) and (iv) of Hindu Marriage Act, claiming divorce against the respondent-wife, the instant Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed. 2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court. 3. Brief facts that led to the filing of the instant appeal are as follows: The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 13.11.2011 at Omkar Mangal Karyalaya, Vijayapura, as per the customs prevailing in the community. After the marriage, the respondent came to the house of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the respondent did not cooperate with him and he never had a cordial relationship with the respondent from the date of their marriage, which caused mental stress and pain to the petitioner. It is stated that the respondent used to stay in the house of the petitioner for two months and then for another two months, she used to reside in her parents house, which was repeated for a period of one year on the ground that she was not happily leading a marital life with the petitioner and never expressed that she was happy in the marital life with the petitioner. It was also the case of the petitioner that the respondent always expressed that she had married him due to the pressure of the parents and that she was not intending to marry the petitioner or was happy with him. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent always expected that he would take care of her parents as well, who were residing at Naad-KD of Indi Taluka. It is when the petitioner expressed that he is not in a position to take care of the respondent’s parents, as the mother of the respondent was suffering from rheumatoid arthritis and that she had undergone a disc operation, she needed a proper and constant care, which the petitioner was not in a position to give. Though the family of the respondent had many other members, none of them took care of the parents of the respondent, except the petitioner. 5. Though the family of the respondent had many other members, none of them took care of the parents of the respondent, except the petitioner. 5. The petitioner contended that the respondent was avoiding to join the petitioner on the ground that she was not feeling well and the respondent never called upon the petitioner. It is all these attitudes of the respondent, according to the petitioner, had caused him grave mental stress. It is the case of the petitioner that the parents of the respondent had suppressed the fact that the respondent was suffering from hereditary anemia and had got her married to the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that he had taken her to the hospital for medical treatment as she was suffering from an incurable disease and the said disease had effects on their sex life and that she was incapable of having sex. 6. It is further contended that in the month of June 2013, the brother of the respondent came to the house of the petitioner and requested the petitioner that he wanted to take the respondent back to their house in the wake of the fact that the respondent’s brother was getting married. The respondent went to her parental house, but never returned. Despite the elders of the family trying to mediate between the petitioner and respondent that the respondent should return to the marital house, she refused and stayed back in her parents house. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that in June 2013, the respondent has deserted his company without any reasonable cause. Further, in the month of July 2014, the petitioner underwent a major knee surgery and was bedridden for about five months. Despite the knowledge of the fact that the petitioner had undergone a surgery, the respondent did not turn up to take care of the petitioner or even call him as a matter of courtesy. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent had avoided sexual relationship with him whenever he had called her and the said attitude of the respondent had caused mental, physical torture and also humiliation to the petitioner. 8. On the ground that the respondent had deserted the petitioner since July 2013 and was residing in her parents house without any reasonable cause, the petitioner approached the Family Court in Matrimonial Case No.110 of 2016. 8. On the ground that the respondent had deserted the petitioner since July 2013 and was residing in her parents house without any reasonable cause, the petitioner approached the Family Court in Matrimonial Case No.110 of 2016. On issuance of notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed her objections. The respondent contended that the petitioner was intending to grab money from her parents and whenever the demand was not met, the petitioner used to torture the respondent. It is contended by the respondent that the petitioner used to travel with his family members to other places leaving the respondent home alone and after some days, the petitioner shifted his residence to Vijayapura and treated her without providing food and made her to suffer and undergo starvation all for demanding money. It was contended that the parents of the respondent had already paid Rs.1,50,000/to the petitioner. 9. It was also contended by the respondent that at the time of marriage with the petitioner, the parents of the respondent had given 30 Tolas of Gold and cash of Rs.20,000/and had also borne all the marriage expenses and according to the respondent the petitioner was paid Rs.20 lakhs prior to the marriage. 10. It was further contended that the respondent became pregnant and during which time, the petitioner to look after family members, left the respondent alone in his house and went to the native place and remained there for several days. During that period, it was contended that the respondent suffered starvation without food. The respondent contended that notwithstanding her pregnancy, the petitioner forcibly got it aborted due to which the respondent became weak for a long time. The petitioner taking advantage of her weakness, due to the abortion, started making false allegation that the respondent was suffering from anemia. The respondent contended that finally, in the year 2013, the petitioner drove her to her parental house and, since then, she has been residing in her parental house. 11. On the aforementioned pleadings of the parties, the Family Court framed issues and recorded evidence. The issues framed by the Family Court are as follows: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of his marriage performed with the respondent on 13.11.2011 at Omkar Mangal Karyalaya, Ashram Road, Vijayapura, on the grounds of Section 13(1), (ia), (ib) and (iv) of Hindu Marriage Act, as prayed ? 2. What orders or decree? 12. The issues framed by the Family Court are as follows: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of his marriage performed with the respondent on 13.11.2011 at Omkar Mangal Karyalaya, Ashram Road, Vijayapura, on the grounds of Section 13(1), (ia), (ib) and (iv) of Hindu Marriage Act, as prayed ? 2. What orders or decree? 12. The petitioner in order to prove his case examined himself as P.W.1 by filing his affidavit and got marked six documents as exhibits P.1 to P.6. The respondent examined herself as R.W.1 and marked two documents as exhibits R.1 and R.2, on her behalf. 13. The Family Court rejected the petition filed by the petitioner seeking divorce on the ground that there was no evidence, either oral or documentary, to establish the fact that the respondent was suffering from hereditary anemia. The Family Court further held that the contention of the petitioner that the respondent refused to have conjugal relationship with him was also contrary to the evidence as the respondent had become pregnant out of the wedlock and that, it was only due to the pressure and force of the petitioner, she had to abort her pregnancy. 14. The Family Court observed that there was evidence of the fact that the family members of the petitioner ill-treated the respondent for additional dowry, due to which the respondent in her cross-examination had admitted that she had returned to her parental house during June 2013, along with her brother and since then, did not return to the matrimonial house. Contrary to the contention of the petitioner that he had made all efforts to bring the respondent back to his house and that she had failed to turn up, the evidence was that the family members of the petitioner had ill-treated the respondent and had given unbearable torture and that she had filed a petition claiming maintenance against the petitioner before the Family Court. 15. The Family Court further held that if the petitioner was so interested to lead a marital life with the respondent, he would have filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights against her and not seeking dissolution of marriage. On all the above grounds, the Family Court rejected the petition filed by the petitioner-husband seeking divorce against the respondent-wife. Challenging the said order of the Family Court dated 16.11.2017, the petitioner-husband has preferred the instant appeal. 16. On all the above grounds, the Family Court rejected the petition filed by the petitioner-husband seeking divorce against the respondent-wife. Challenging the said order of the Family Court dated 16.11.2017, the petitioner-husband has preferred the instant appeal. 16. We have heard Sri. Mahantesh Patil, learned advocate for appellant and Sri. S.S.Mamadapur, learned advocate for respondent. 17. Notice in the instant appeal was issued on 09.01.2018. On 03.04.2018, this Court passed the following order: “ Keeping in view of the nature of dispute involved, it is appropriate that the parties attempt to settle the matter through mediation. Hence, the Registry preferred the appeal papers to the Mediation Centre attached to this Bench. The parties and the learned counsel to appear before the Mediation Centre on 20.4.2018. List after the report is received from the Mediation Centre.” On failure of the mediation, the matter was again re listed on 18.09.2018 and this Court passed the following order: “Learned counsel appearing for both the parties submit that though mediation has failed, further efforts shall be made to get the matter settled between the parties. Learned counsel for the parties shall keep the parties present before this Court on the next date of hearing. List the matter on 03.10.2018.” 18. On 03.10.2018, the case was again adjourned to 22.10.2018. On 22.10.2018, the learned counsel appearing for the parties sought time on the ground that the elders of the family are negotiating a settlement between the parties and sought further time in the matter. Subsequently, the matter was adjourned on several occasions only to bring out a settlement between the parties. On the request of the learned Counsel, the matter was again referred to Mediation Centre, by an order of this Court, on 07.08.2019. The effort before the Mediation Centre again failed. Again, the matter was adjourned on several occasions on the ground that there was likelihood of settlement between the parties. 19. The matter was listed before us on 11.02.2020 and we had interacted with the learned Counsels and the parties and passed the following order: “We have heard the counsel and interacted with the parties. The respondent-wife has categorically stated that she will not go back to her matrimonial home and that her father had spent about Rs.15.00 Lakhs towards her marriage and if the said amount is awarded as alimony, they have no objection for grant of a divorce. The respondent-wife has categorically stated that she will not go back to her matrimonial home and that her father had spent about Rs.15.00 Lakhs towards her marriage and if the said amount is awarded as alimony, they have no objection for grant of a divorce. The appellant-husband submits that he is without a job and he has offered Rs.10.00 lakhs as permanent alimony. The counsels for the parties submit that this Court as a via media had suggested a sum of Rs.12.00 lakhs. The hearing is adjourned to 19.2.2020 to enable the parties to arrive at a mutual agreement with the amount.” 20. The matter was listed on subsequent dates and the petitioner-husband submitted that it was very difficult for him to pay a permanent alimony anything beyond Rs.10.00 lakhs. 21. It is not disputed that the respondent-wife has categorically submitted that she is not willing to go back to her matrimonial home and is ready to receive an alimony as is determined by this Court for grant of divorce and dissolution of marriage. The appellant has pleaded that he is unable to pay any amount beyond Rs.10.00 lakhs as he is without any job and the amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs also is being borrowed from his friends and relatives. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DURGA PRASANNA TRIPATHY VS. ARUNDHATI TRIPATHY reported in (2005) 7 SCC 353 has held that the economic condition of the husband to pay the permanent alimony also has to be looked into when the marriage has become irretrievable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph Nos.28 and 29 has held as follows: “28. The facts and circumstances in the above three cases disclose that reunion is impossible. The case on hand is one such. It is not in dispute that the appellant and the respondent are living away for the last 14 years. It is also true that a good part of the lives of both the parties has been consumed in this litigation. As observed by this Court, the end is not in sight. The assertion of the wife through her learned counsel at the time of hearing appears to be impractical. It is also a matter of record that dislike for each other was burning hot. 29. Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to say the following: Marriages are made in heaven. The assertion of the wife through her learned counsel at the time of hearing appears to be impractical. It is also a matter of record that dislike for each other was burning hot. 29. Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to say the following: Marriages are made in heaven. Both parties have crossed the point of no return. A workable solution is certainly not possible. Parties cannot at this stage reconcile themselves and live together forgetting their past as a bad dream. We, therefore, have no other option except to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and affirming the order of the Family Court granting decree for divorce. The Family Court has directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.50,000 towards permanent alimony to the respondent and pursuant to such direction the appellant had deposited the amount by way of bank draft. Considering the status of parties and the economic condition of the appellant who is facing criminal prosecution and out of job and also considering the status of the wife who is employed, we feel that a further sum of Rs 1 lakh by way of permanent alimony would meet the ends of justice. This shall be paid by the appellant within 3 months from today by an account payee demand draft drawn in favour of the respondent Arundhati Tripathy and the dissolution shall come into effect when the demand draft is drawn and furnished to the respondent.” 22. In terms of what is observed hereinabove, in our order, and in the interaction between the parties, one fact that would emerge is that, both the husband and the wife do not want to live together. The wife is ready for dissolution of the marriage in the event she gets the amount that has been spent by her parents for her marriage. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DURGA PRASANNA TRIPATHY(SUPRA),we are of the considered view that an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs should be paid by the appellant husband to the respondent wife as permanent alimony for dissolution of the marriage. 23. For the aforementioned reasons, we pass the following: ORDER i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed. 23. For the aforementioned reasons, we pass the following: ORDER i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed. ii) The order dated 16.11.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vijayapur in M.C.No.110/2016, is set aside and the marriage between the appellant and the respondent stands dissolved subject to the condition that the appellant shall pay Rs.10.00 lakhs to the respondent wife as permanent alimony, within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.