JUDGMENT
B. Panigrahi, J.
1. On consent of both parties, the Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2000 and Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2002 are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The appellant-opposite party is the legally married wife of the respondent-petitioner and their marriage was solemnised on 5.6.1990 according to Hindu Rites and customs. After consummation of marriage, both the parties continued to live together till 9.2.1991. It is alleged by the appellant-wife that when the respondent-husband initiated a proceeding under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against her before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, they could not continue any longer under one roof. Therefore, the appellant-wife was constrained to remain separately from him.
3. In the said proceeding, the present appellant had appeared and filed her written statement wherein it was alleged that the respondent-husband demanded a scooter and compelled her to bring it from her parents, but her parents due to utter poverty could not provide the same. As a result, she had to face torture and ill-treatment by the husband. Ultimately, she was allegedly driven out from the marital home. The appellant-wife had also filed Criminal Proceeding No. 451 of 1997 for maintenance and lodged a report about demand of dowry which was registered as G. R. Case No 837 of 1997 in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara. It is stated that in order to avoid the criminal proceeding, the respondent-husband had filed such application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
4. The respondent-husband on the other hand alleged that he has been living in a joint family with his parents, brothers and other members. After solemnisation of the marriage, the appellant-wife consistently insisted him to live separately from the joint family, as a result of which, the family peace and happiness was disturbed to a great extent. It has been further stated by the respondent-husband that the appellant-wife behaved in a cruel manner, for which it was impossible for him to continue with her. Since the appellant-wife deserted the respondent-husband and went away from the marital home to her father’s house out of her own free will, the respondent-husband prayed for a decree for divorce.
5. The respondent-husband inter alia prayed for a decree of divorce only on account of cruelty and desertion. He had alleged that on account of mental cruelty, caused by the appellant, it was impossible for him to continue with the appellant-wife any longer.
6. From the evidence on record, the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack held that immediately after the marriage some time in 1990 there was frequent misunderstanding, dissension, and quarrel between both the spouses, as a result of which both parties could not live together. Undisputedly there was report lodged by the appellant-wife against the demand of dowry allegedly made by the respondent-husband. The case is also pending adjudication. Since there was an order for directing the appellant to pay maintenance @ Rs. 400/- per month, the respondent challenged the validity of the order in the above revision application.
7. From the averments of both parties, it has become lucidly clear that the respondent is residing with another lady. In such eventuality, it would not be apposite for the appellant-wife to continue with him. Even if decree for divorce fails, the chance of both the parties coming together is very dim and doubtful. Therefore, taking the factual scenario into consideration, the learned trial Court had granted a decree for divorce subject to deposit of Rs. 25,000/- towards permanent alimony.
8. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has high-lighted that with the meagre amount of Rs. 25,000/- it is impossible for the appellant-wife to sustain her livelihood for the rest part of her life. Mr. Sahoo learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband has strongly contended that the husband is working in a Private College and there is no assured monthly income being derived as salary. Therefore, the learned Judge, Family Court taking the above factors into consideration had fixed the said amount towards permanent alimony.
9. If we maintain that amount of Rs. 25,000/- payable by the respondent-husband and the interest derived therefrom to be appropriate for the permanent alimony, it would amount to unreality and impossibility. With such insufficient amount, the appellant-wife cannot maintain her livelihood being separated from the respondent-husband. Therefore, we hereby increase the amount of permanent alimony from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 75,000/- (seventy five thousand only). It is submitted that Rs. 25,000/- has already been deposited by way of Bank Draft in the name of the appellant-wife before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. Therefore, the respondent-husband is directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- in shape of Bank Draft to her within a period of three months from today with the due intimation to the learned counsel for the parties. Till such Bank Draft of Rs. 50,000/- is sent, the respondent-husband shall not be absolved from the liability to pay maintenance @ Rs. 400/- per month. In other words, he shall send Rs. 400/- (rupees four hundred) per month within first week of each succeeding month by way of money order till the payment as directed above is made by him.,
10. From the order passed under Section 125, Cr.P.C. by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, it has appeared that the respondent-husband was directed to pay Rs. 400/- per month from the date of application i.e. 12.8.1997. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband has however submitted that his client has paid maintenance amount at that rate during pendency of the appeal, i.e, from January, 2002 till date. In that event the respondent shall have to pay towards the arrear maintenance to the tune of about Rs. 19,000/-. But to square up the litigation, if a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) is paid towards the arrear along with Rs. 50,000/- as directed above, it shall absolve the respondent-husband from paying any further maintenance towards arrears.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has submitted that in the event the aforesaid order is worked-out, the appellant should not.pursue the G. R. Case. Since the decree for divorce passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack is hereby affirmed, subject to the above modifications, we find there is no necessity of proceeding further under Section 498-A. Accordingly, the G. R. Case No. 837 of 1997 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara would be quashed in the event of payment of Rs. 10,000/-.
On failure of payment of the amounts stated above by the respondent-husband within the time stipulated, the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court shall be deemed to have been set aside and the criminal case against the respondent-husband shall proceed in accordance with law.
12. With the above observation and direction, the Civil Appeal as well as the Criminal Revision is disposed of.
P.K. Mistra, J.
13. I agree.