JUDGMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.
1. These two appeals are from the judgment and order dated 2.6.2006 passed by the Family Court No. 2, Jaipur and, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Govind Gupta and Santosh Gupta (here-in-after to be referred as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ respectively or by their first name) married on 4.12.1985 at Gangapur city in accord with Hindu customs and rites. Out of the wedlock, the daughter (Pragati) was born in the year 1986 and the son (Prateek) was born in the year 1994. The marriage between the parties did not get along well despite the birth of two children and that both of them have been living separately for many years is an admitted position.
3. On 12.6.2002, the husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage and divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty and desertion.
4. In his petition, the husband set out the acts of the wife which according to him caused mental cruelty. He alleged that after three days of the marriage, the wife left for her parent’s house. After about a month, his father went to Gangapur City to bring Santosh to their ancestral village Danda but her father declined to sent her for Danda. Then after about 15 days, Govind went to her parent’s house to bring her. At that time, he was told by her father that Santosh shall not be sent to village danda as there were no facilities. Her father said that if Santosh is taken to Jaipur, she would be sent. He brought Santosh to Jaipur. For about 10-15 days, everything went on well but thereafter there was a lot of change in Santosh behaviour. Govind alleged that after he left for office, Santosh would go to the places of her liking; she would come in the evening and sometimes late in the night. This conduct of her, according to the husband, was subject matter of talks amongst neighbours. When he would return from the office, Santosh would not make tea or food. He tried to reason with Santosh not to move out of the house unnecessarily and prepare breakfast and food and do the house hold chores on time so that after dinner they could move out. According to husband, the tentative date of delivery of their first child was 21.11.1986. At that time he wanted his sister or aunt to come to Jaipur for the purpose of delivery. However, Santosh threatened that if he called his sister or aunt, she would commit suicide. He, therefore, did not call his sister or aunt at the time of her first delivery. Even after the birth of the girl child, the things did not improve; she did not treat the infant properly nor would she feed her on time. In the year 1987, he went to Hyderabad for computer training. At that time, Santosh forced him to take her also to Hyderabad. He had to tell her that in the training, she cannot be taken since the lodging and boarding has been arranged by the organisers. On this Santosh became angry. When he returned from Hyderabad, he found his house locked. His neighbours informed him that Santosh left the house immediately after he left for Hyderabad and she only came in the morning. He waited for about 1-2 hours and then Santosh came. She told him that she had gone to watch movie. Because of her carefree attitude, he was hurt. In the year 1988 at the time of Deepawali, his mother fell ill and both of them were called to visit her at Village Danda. He asked Santosh to accompany him to village Danda to meet his mother. Santosh got angry and abused him and refused to go to Danda. He, therefore, had to go to village Danda alone. Govind alleged that in the month of August, 1991, Santosh went to her sister’s place in Karauli and from there ran away with somebody. He lodged a missing report at the Police Station Karauli. The police then searched her and brought her to his house. This act of the wife made difficult for him to move out of the house and affected his and his family’s reputation. Because of the bad habits of the wife, the husband alleged that he was required to change his residential house frequently. Her behaviour with his mother, when they were staying at Shastri Nagar in a rented house, was highly objectionable. She would not prepare meals nor would she talk to his mother. During this time, he was required to make food for his mother and father. Her behaviour with his friends was also not proper. She would not even offer water to his friends. Every time he had to offer explanation to his friends that his wife’s health was not good. He was required to make tea and breakfast for visitors. The husband alleged that the wife would always quarrel with him whenever he sent amount for the maintenance of his own parents and unemployed younger brother. In the year 1995-96, Santosh suffered from T.B.M. She was admitted in Neurology Ward of SMS Hospital, Jaipur. At that time he wanted to call his sister or aunt but she flatly refused and, therefore, for about 20 days he alone was required to attend her in the hospital. The husband alleged that he went on tolerating the matrimonial misconduct of the wife with the hope that by passage of time her behaviour would improve. He was also concerned about his children and, therefore, went on tolerating objectionable behaviour of his wife. The husband alleged that on 2.4.2000, the wife locked their house and went to her friend’s place. He waited till late night but Santosh did not return and then he was compelled to go his friend’s place. In the next morning when he came to his house, the house was still locked and Santosh was not there. On 3.4.2000, she got a call from her. She threatened that if he ever returned to the house, he will have to face dire consequences. He was thus, compelled to take shelter in his friend’s house and thereafter he took rented house and after some time, he got the official accommodation. He alleged that the wife has forcibly dispossessed him on 2.4.2000 from the house built by him and his ownership and deprived him of matrimonial company. The husband alleged that he tried many times to return to his house but the wife refused his entry in the house and threatened that if he ever tried to enter into the house, his hands and legs would be broken. The husband, thus, alleged that since 2.4.2000 without any reasonable cause, the wife has refused cohabitation and has deserted him. The husband alleged that there was no likelihood of any reconciliation in view of the wife’s determination to snap matrimonial relationship.
5. In her reply, the wife denied the allegations made by the husband in the matrimonial petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. She averred that at the time of engagement ceremony, a cash amount of Rs. 1 lac was given with few gold items. In the marriage, also Rs. 75,000/- was given in cash along with house hold items, furniture and other items. She denied that her father ever refused to send her to her husband’s place. The husband came to her father’s house after about two months of the marriage and took her to Jaipur and she lived with him. She denied that she was moving freely in Jaipur. Rather, she stated that since she hailed from small village, no sooner the husband left for his office, she would bolt the house from inside and open it only on his return. She averred that she always prepared tea, fresh breakfast and food on husband’s return from office. She stated that as a matter of fact at the time of her first delivery, she asked her husband to call his mother but he flatly refused. She denied having insisted to accompany her husband during his computer training to Hyderabad. She asserted that when the husband returned from Hyderabad, she was at the house and prepared tea and breakfast for him. According to her, the husband suffered from some complex and he would not even permit her to talk to other ladies. As and when she talked to some body, he would get annoyed and abuse her. She averred that in the year 1988, when her mother-in-law came to Jaipur, she took her full care. She admitted that she went to her sister’s place at Karauli, but denied that she ran away with somebody. According to her after staying at her sister’s place for one week, she went to her parent’s house at Gangapur city. She stated that the husband frequently changed the house as the landlords were not satisfied with his behaviour. In so far as rented house at Shastri Nagar was concerned, the said house was vacated because the parties built their own house. Though she admitted that the plot of land at Saraswati Nagar, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur was purchased by the husband but insofar as construction of the house was concerned, she asserted that it was done by the funds contributed by both of them. The wife asserted that as a matter of fact, for this purpose, she had to sell her jewelery. According to the wife, the husband would come late in the night from the office and at that odd hour if he was accompanied by his friends, it was not possible to entertain them. Otherwise, on holidays etc. whenever the husband’s relatives or friends visited their house, she took full care of them. She stated that the dispute between the parties arose because the husband would send part of his salary to his parents and younger brother for their maintenance and also his spending money on some lady friend. As a result thereof, she became ill having body-ache, head-ache etc. As regards her treatment in the SMS Hospital in the year 1995-96, she stated that she was in coma and, therefore, it was wrong to alleged that she did not permit her husband to call his sister or aunt. The wife stated in her reply that the behaviour of the husband towards children was not good. He would be harsh towards them. She denied that on 2.4.2000, she went to her friend’s place after locking the house. She alleged that on 2.4.2000, the husband was at some other lady’s place in Brahmpuri. She denied having asker her husband to get out of the house. She stated that she never objected to the husband staying in their house as he has equal share and even today she has no objection if he comes and stays with her. The wife also stated that on 2.4.2000, it was the husband who did not come to the house and that made her worried. Next day, she tried to find out from her husband’s friends and co-workers and came to know that he was in the office until evening. At about 11.00 a.m., on 3.4.2000, she phoned the husband in his office; spqke to him and requested him to come to the house. However, he stated that he wanted divorce and, therefore, he would stay away from her for minimum two years and then file the petition for divorce on the ground of desertion. The wife denied having given any threat to the husband either herself or through others. She averred that since husband was desirous of marrying with his lady friend, since September, 2000 he left the matrimonial house on his own. According to her, the husband cohabitated with her up to 2.9.2000 and, therefore, it was incorrect to say that the parties have been living separately for more than two years. She refuted that the ground of mental cruelty or desertion was made out. She submitted that the petition for divorce and dissolution of marriage filed by the husband was liable to be dismissed.
6. After filing the reply on 6.7.2002 in opposition to the matrimonial petition of the husband, the wife on 26.11.2002 filed a petition before the Family Court for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. She prayed that her husband be directed to keep her as his wife and provide her all facilities and re-establish the matrimonial relationship.
7. The husband contested the petition filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights and broadly on the same facts on which he filed the petition for divorce and dissolution of marriage, set up the defence that because of the conduct of the wife, his life has become in-secure and unsafe and it would not be possible for them to live together. He, thus, denied that the wife was entitled to restitution of conjugal rights. The husband stated that the application for restitution of conjugal rights has been made by the wife only to counter petition for divorce and dissolution of marriage filed by him.
8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, in petition filed by the husband for divorce and dissolution of marriage, the Family Court framed the following two issues, namely:
(i) Whether the wife for the acts averred in the petition caused physical and mental cruelty to the husband?
(ii) Whether the wife has deserted the husband and refused to discharge matrimonial obligation continuously for a period of two years without reasonable cause?
9. In the petition filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights, the following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the husband day in and day out abused and beat her and behaved with her indecently and cruelty due to which the wife was compelled to apply for maintenance in which by consent maintenance of Rs. 2,200/- per month was awarded but the husband became angry due to the said order and deserted her?
(ii) Whether the wife deliberately dispossessed the husband from their house on 2.4.2000 and despite the efforts of the husband, she has not permitted him to enter the house?
10. In support of his case, in the petition for divorce and dissolution of marriage, the husband examined himself (AW-1) and also examined four other witnesses namely: Jagdish Gurjar (AW-2), Mahesh Chand (AW-3), Birdhi Chand Meena (AW-4) and Ramjilal Goyal (AW-5). On the other hand, the wife in opposition to the said petition examined herself (NAW-1), Om Prakash (NAW-2), Madan (NAW-3) and Mahendra Kumar (NAW-4).
11. In the petition for restitution of conjugal rights, the wife examined herself (PW-1), Pragati Gupta (PW-2), Mahendra Kumar (PW. 3) and Madan (PW-4). While the husband in opposition examined himself (DW-1) and Ramjilal (DW-2).
12. The husband produced two documents in support of his case being missing report (Ex. A-1) and the ration card (Ex. A-2).
13. The Family Court held the wife guilty of matrimonial offence on both the issues; mental cruelty and desertion. The Family Court held that because of her acts and conduct referred to in the petition and proved by the evidence, the wife caused mental cruelty to the husband and also deserted him without any reasonable cause. The Family Court recorded that the wife’s character was not good and, thus, husband was entitled to dissolution of marriage and decree of divorce. The wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed. The judgment and decree of the Family Court is dated 2.6.2006. It is this judgment which is impugned by the wife in two appeals.
14. D.B, Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1923/2006 is against the judgment and decree whereby the petition for divorce and dissolution of marriage was granted by the Family Court. The other appeal being DB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2207/2006 is from the same judgment and decree whereby the wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights has been dismissed.
15. That the parties got married in the year 1985 is not in dispute. Though the husband has set up the case that when his father went to the Santosh parent’s house to bring her to the ancestral house at Danda, her parents refused to sent her to Danda and that after few days of her return to Jaipur, her behaviour became very bad and she would move freely after he had left for office and that Santosh would come either in the evening or late in the night but we find that the evidence led by the husband is not reliable. Similarly with regard to the allegation that the wife would not do house hold chores nor prepare tea and meals, the evidence of the husband does not inspire confidence and the said acts hardly constitute mental cruelty. In respect of the allegations made in paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, particularly that at the time of first delivery she refused the husband to call his sister or aunt; that in the year 1987 her husband went to Hyderabad for computer training she insisted that she will accompany him and that on his return from Hyderabad, he found that his house was locked and he came to know from the neighbours that she left the house immediately after he left for Hyderabad and returned only on the day of his return and that he had to wait for about an hour or two before the wife came; that on Deepawali of 1988, the husband’s mother fell ill and both of them were called to the village but the wife refused to accompany him and abused him and in the month of August, 1991 she went to her sister’s house at Karauli, from there she ran away with somebody for which a missing report was lodged by him and that the police searched and brought her home, are not at all proved by any reliable evidence. The missing report (Ex. 1) only shows that the husband lodged a report to the police station that his wife was missing. The said report does not show that she ran away with some body nor there is anything on record that shows that she was recovered by the police and was brought to the house. Thus, there is no reliable evidence to prove the allegations of cruelty made by the husband in paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the matrimonial petition. Very importantly and that is an admitted position that despite all these omissions and the acts of the wife, both of them were having matrimonial relationship and the son was born on 16.2.1994. Whatever be the acts or omission of the wife during this period, if any, were condoned as the husband continued to have sexual intercourse with her and the son was born out of the wedlock. Even the husband’s own case is that until 1995 he had physical relations with the wife. It can, therefore, be held that the acts of the wife up to 1995 were condoned by the husband.
16. For the period from the year 1995 until 2.4.2000 there are no specific acts of cruelty, mental or otherwise, alleged by the husband in the petition. The admitted fact is that they continued to live together until 2.4.2000.
17. It is the case of the husband that on 2.4.2000, the wife locked the house and went to her friend’s house. He waited until night but the wife did not return. He, therefore, had to go to his friends house. In paragraph 27 of the petition, the husband has not mentioned specific name of his friend where he stayed over night but in the evidence, he introduced his friend Mahesh. Having carefully read the deposition of the husband in this regard and also the evidence of Mahesh, we find it difficult to rely on their deposition. The evidence of the husband with regard to allegation that on 3.4.2000, the wife threatened him on phone that if he returned to the house, he will have to face dire consequences is also not reliable. If the wife did not permit the husband to enter the matrimonial home on and from 2.4.2000, he would not have kept quiet. That he took no action nor initiated any legal proceedings against the wife in this regard, leads us to believe that the intention of the husband was to remain away from the wife by making false plea of his dispossession from the matrimonial house and then make a ground of desertion against the wife.
18. It is strange and rather we are perplexed that the Family Court believed the case of the husband and relied upon his evidence and that of his witnesses on a very serious matter like the character of wife and held against her. The evidence of AW-2, AW-3, AW-4 and AW-5 is highly unnatural and does not inspire confidence.
19. We have no hesitation in holding that the husband has failed to establish the ground of mental cruelty against the wife. The evidence of the husband is not at all reliable on this aspect. The witnesses are made up witnesses. The Family Court over looked the aspect that the second child was born in the month of February, 1994 and the matrimonial misconduct of the wife, if any, stood condoned by the husband until that time. The appreciation of the evidence by the Family Court is flawed and the finding of cruelty has been recorded against the weight of the evidence.
20. In so far as ground of desertion is concerned, again we find it difficult to accept the case of the husband that the wife deserted him and refused to discharge her matrimonial obligations without reasonable cause. Until 1.4.2000, admittedly, parties lived together at their matrimonial home in Saraswati Nagar, Sawai Gator Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. The case of the husband is that since 2.4.2000 when he was dispossessed from the house, he has been deserted by the wife. As we have noticed above, the fact that he kept quiet for two years and then filed petition for divorce and dissolution of marriage would show that he wanted period of two years to run out to enable him to put forth the ground of desertion for divorce and dissolution of marriage. Interestingly, in between the wife moved the court for maintenance for herself and two children and in that proceeding, the husband agreed to pay to the wife and the children the maintenance of Rs. 2,200/-. From the careful reading of the evidence on record and the conduct of the husband, it is not unreasonable to hold that the husband remained away from the wife for two years to avail of desertion-as a ground for divorce. The finding of the Family Court on the ground of desertion is also unsustainable.
21. Having held that the husband has failed to prove the grounds of mental cruelty and desertion, now we advert to the aspect highlighted by the counsel for the husband that in any case the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down and the interest of neither of the parties shall be subserved if the marriage is not dissolved.
22. On 5.7.2007, the parties were summoned for negotiation and reconciliation by the Division Bench of R.C. Gandhi and Vineet Kothari, JJ. On that day, the parties seem to have submitted that they would make an effort to live together at the first instance for a period of one month. The order dated 5.7.2007 reads thus:
Parties were summoned for negotiations and reconciliation. They are present along with their daughter. The boy reading in 10th Class could not come because of unavoidable reasons. We have made an effort for reconciliation between the parties so as to live happy life under one roof. Negotiations have yielded some results. They have agreed to live together and for that they will make an effort at the first instance for a period of one month. They have also agreed after the negotiations that they will visit the temple of “Lord Govind Devji” today itself after leaving the court premises and make a prayer before the Almighty for their reconciliation and peaceful life of their family. Thereafter, they will start their new happy life as husband and wife along with their children at the residence of the respondent husband situated at No. 2/125 Telecom Colony, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur although he has his own house also situated at D-95, Sarswati Nagar, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur presently under the occupation of his spouse. Both parties may jointly live at either of the aforesaid addresses. During this period if any unforeseen event happens, they are at liberty to approach the court before the date fixed.
List after one month.
23. Then on 10.9.2007, the matter was posted before us. On that day, the parties were present with their advocates. There were allegations and counter allegations by the parties against each other but it was clear that the parties were not able to stay together for the period mentioned in the order dated 5.7.2007. It was found that there was no likelihood of the parties staying together. In the light of the submissions of the parties, we passed the order on 10.9.2007 thus:
Santosh Guptaappellant and Govind Gupta – respondent are present along with their respective advocates. There are allegations and counter allegations by the parties against each other and it appears that despite the order dated 5th July, 2007, the parties have not been able to stay together for the period mentioned in that order. As a matter of fact, Mr; Akhil Simlote, the counsel for the appellant stated that the marriage between the parties has failed. Mr. R.K. Mathur, the counsel for the respondent also submitted that as far as his discussion with the respondent goes, there is no likelihood of the parties staying together. Govind Gupta-respondent who is present in the court admitted that except the house where the appellant has been presently residing, she has no place to stay. He also admitted that their daughter Pragati will be completing 21 years in the month of November, 2007 and arrangements for her marriage shall have to be made. He also admitted that their son Prateek is about 13 years old and has to be given good education. We wanted to know from Mr. R.K. Mathur, the counsel for the respondent-Govind Gupta, in case the parties are unable to reconcile and stay together, how the respondent is going to make arrangement for the residence of the appellant; the marriage for their daughter Pragati and the education for their son Prateek. He did suggest that the respondent was ready and willing to give one third of the sale proceeds that may be received by the respondent from the sale of the house at Malviya Nagar (D-95, Saraswati Nagar, Sawai Getor Road). The offer of the respondent appears to us to be inadequate. However, the counsel for the respondent submits that if some time is granted, the respondent would consider this aspect and come out with some reasonable offer for the residence of the appellant and the arrangement for the marriage of their daughter and education for their son.
2. Stand over for tomorrow i.e. 11th September, 2007.
24. Thereafter on 11.9.2007, the matter was again adjourned since the husband wanted some more time to consider the aspects concerning the provision for the residence of the wife and the arrangement for marriage of their daughter and education of their son.
25. On 17.9.2007, the counsel for the husband submitted that to bring an amicable end to the controversy, the husband was ready and willing to pay to the wife permanent alimony in lump sum and towards the marriage of their daughter and education of the son, a sum of Rs. 3 lacs within 15 days and a sum of Rs. 9 lacs out of the sale proceeds as and when the house is sold, from the sale of his house D-95, Saraswati Nagar, Sawai Gator Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur presently in occupation of wife. The counsel for the husband submitted that on entire payment of Rs. 12 lacs being, made, the wife must peacefully vacate that house.
26. The counsel for the wife took instructions and submitted that the said offer was not acceptable as she would be left with no residential accommodation. He suggested that if the husband was ready and willing to give her half portion of the said house, she could consider the dissolution of marriage by mutual consent.
27. The counsel for the husband after taking instructions submitted that the size of the plot being small i.e., 30′ x 60′; the division of the said plot was not feasible.
28. Thus, we find that the parties are not able to reach any amicable solution.
29. Ordinarily having failed to prove the mental cruelty and desertion, the husband’s petition for divorce must fail. But in a case like this where the marriage between the parties has failed and there is no likelihood of its revival, more so despite this court’s order and Intervention, the parties could not reconcile, though opportunity was given, in our considered view to continue dead marriage shall not be of any Interest to either of the parties. For last seven years both of them have been living separately. Even the wife in her reply opposing the petttion under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act stated in paragraph 32 that distance between them has increased because the applicant has been sharing his income in maintaining his parents and younger brother and also sharing his income in maintaining his widowed lady friend. This also shows that the marriage between the parties has broken down though both of them have set up different reasons for this unfortunate thing. Both the parties have made allegations against each other about their character. Despite the efforts of the court, the parties have not been able to forget the past and look at the future. In such state of affairs where neither of the parties is desirous of inching towards reconciliation, we are of the view that if they cannot live together peacefully, they must part their ways peacefully provided the husband makes provision for wife’s residence, daughter’s marriage and son’s education.
30. The husband is Senior Telecom Assistant (Phones) in the office of the Commercial Officer, B.S.N.L., Jaipur. He is, thus, a Central Government employee. We are informed that his gross salary is 15,283/-. The only property that he has is the house at D-95, Sarswati Nagar, Sawai Gator Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, presently in occupation of the wife. We are also informed that at present he is paying maintenance of Rs. 2,700/- per month to the wife for herself and two children. We are further informed that the daughter Pragati who is now major has made an application before the Family Court claiming a sum of Rs. 4,25,000/- towards her marriage expenses and the wife has made an application before the Family Court for enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 2,700/- to Rs. 7,000/- per month.
31. It is true that the wife does not have any place to stay other than the matrimonial house where she is residing presently. At the same time, the husband does not have any property other than the property where the wife is residing. He can pay lumpsum amount to the wife only after the sale of the house where the wife is presently residing. The husband is not very highly paid employee. His basic pay is Rs. 8,500/- and gross salary is Rs. 15,283/-. The amount of permanent alimony in the back-drop of his gross salary may at best be fixed between Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month. Looking to the size of the plot which is said to be 30′ x 60′, the division of the said plot is neither expedient nor feasible. The market price of the said plot, according to the husband, is about Rs. 25 lacs. The offer made by the husband to pay to the wife lump sum amount of Rs. 12 lacs towards permanent alimony, the provision for daughter’s marriage and education of the son seems to us to be fair and reasonable. It would have been better if the wife had accepted this fair proposal. Since, she has not, we intend to pass an appropriate order in me interest of both the parties.
Obviously, in what we have said above, the dismissal of the wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights by the Family Court does not call for any interference.
32. We, accordingly, dispose of these two appeals by the following order:
(i) The marriage between the parties dissolved and decree of divorce granted by the Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 2.6.2006 is maintained not on the grounds given by the Family Court but because of the marriage having been irretrievably broken down,
(ii) The said decree is subject to the compliance of the following aspects toy the husband:
(a) The husband-Govind Gupta shall deposit a sum of Rs. 3 lacs with 11 the Registry of this Court within 15 days from today. This amount may be withdrawn by the wife Santosh Gupta On her filitig art undertaking on affidavit that she abides by the decree of divorce arid dissolution of marriage. If no affidavit is filed by the wife within one month of the intimation of such deposit and she challenges the judgment and decree before the Supreme Court, in that event the Registrar (Administration) shall invest the said amount in the Fixed Deposit Receipt of any nationalised bank initially for a period of one year, renewable thereafter for the same period each time until the disposal of the matter by the Supreme Court. The amount of Rs. 3 lacs along with accrued interest shall be paid to the party as per the final order that may be passed by the Supreme Court.
b) The husband shall be at liberty to dispose of the house D-95, Sarswati Nagar, Sawai Gajor Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. From the sale proceeds, a sum of Rs. 9 lacs shall be deposited by the husband with the Registry of this Court. The wife shall be at liberty to withdraw the said amount on her furnishing an undertaking as directed above. Immediately on payment of Rs. 9 lacs to the wife, she shall hand over vacant possession of the house to the husband or the buyer, as the case may be.
Upon payment/deposit of Rs. 12 lacs by the husband, the wife shall have no claim of alimony against the husband and the pending applications for enhancement of maintenance and provision for marriage of the daughter shall stand disposed of.
(d) The Wife shall be entitled to continue to remain in occupation of the house situated at D-95, Sarswati Nagar, Sawai Gator Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur until the entire sum of Rs. 12 lacs is paid to her or deposited in the court. The initial amount of Rs. 3 lacs and further amount of Rs. 9 lacs, if paid to the wife directly, shall be paid only by bankers cheque or pay order.
(e) The decree of dissolution of marriage and divorce shall not come into effect until the amount of Rs. 12 lacs as aforedirected is deposited in the court or paid to the wife as indicated above.
(iii) It shall be open to the husband to execute the decree from the Family Court on compliance of the aforesaid directives in case there is no order otherwise by the Supreme Court and in that event the amount deposited by the husband before this Court shall be transferred to the Family Court.
(iv) The parties shall bear their own costs.