MATA Nos. 164 & 165 of 2022 Page 1 of 17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

MATA No.164 of 2022

CNR No. ODHC010542862022

Sai Sonali Nanda …. Appellant

Represented by Adv.

Mr. A. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate

along with Mr. G.M. Rath, Advocate

-Versus-

Sambit Mishra …. Respondent

Represented by Adv.

Mr. A.K. Sarangi, Advocate

MATA No.165 of 2022

CNR No. ODHC010544482022

Sai Sonali Nanda …. Appellant

Represented by Adv.

Mr. A. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate

along with Mr. G.M. Rath, Advocate

-Versus-

Sambit Mishra …. Respondent

Represented by Adv.

Mr. A.K. Sarangi, Advocate

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

Date of Hearing: 27.08.2026

Date of Judgment: 01.10.2026 MATA/165/2022

ODHC010544482022

2022:OHC:1-DB

MATA Nos. 164 & 165 of 2022 Page 2 of 17

CHITTARANJAN DASH, J.

1. The present two appeals i.e. MATA No.164 of 2022 and

MATA No.164 of 2022 arise out of a common judgment dated

21.05.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in

C.P. No.431 of 2020 and C.P. No.32 of 2021. Since both

proceedings arise out of the same matrimonial relationship and

involve overlapping facts and issues, they were heard together and

are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on

13.07.2016 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. The

matrimonial relationship, however, did not continue for long and

the parties have been living separately since 26.02.2017. The

husband instituted C.P. No.431 of 2020 under Section 13(1)(ia) of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage

on the ground of cruelty. The wife contested the proceeding and,

subsequently, instituted C.P. No.32 of 2021 under Section 9 of the

Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The learned Family

Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence adduced

by the parties, allowed the husband's petition for divorce,

dismissed the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights and,

while dissolving the marriage, directed payment of ₹16,00,000/- to

the wife towards permanent alimony.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant-wife, during the course

of hearing, submitted that the learned Family Court erred in

granting a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. It was

contended that the finding of cruelty substantially rested upon the

MATA Nos. 164 & 165 of 2022 Page 3 of 17

allegation that the Appellant was accustomed to a lavish lifestyle,

which, by itself, could not constitute matrimonial cruelty. Learned

counsel further submitted that the serious allegations made by the

Appellant regarding demand of money, physical and mental

harassment and other matrimonial misconduct had not been

properly appreciated. Reliance was also placed on the decisions of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.),

reported in (1994) 1 SCC 337 and Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj

Pandit, reported in 2006 (3) SCC 778 to contend that the conduct

complained of must be assessed in its matrimonial context and

with reference to the legal standard of mental cruelty. However, as

recorded by this Court on 24.03.2025, learned Senior Counsel for

the Appellant-wife submitted that the Appellant no longer

questioned the decree of divorce and confined the challenge in

MATA No.165 of 2022 to the quantum of permanent alimony and

return of the dowry articles.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent-husband

supported the judgment of the learned Family Court. It was

submitted that the matrimonial relationship had become

irretrievably strained within a short period of the marriage; the

parties had been living separately since 26.02.2017 and repeated

efforts at reconciliation had failed. It was contended that the

evidence on record, when considered in its entirety, established

the course of conduct on the part of the Appellant which rendered

continuation of the matrimonial relationship untenable. Learned

counsel also supported the amount awarded towards permanent

alimony, on the basis of the income and financial circumstances of

MATA Nos. 164 & 165 of 2022 Page 4 of 17

the Respondent. The Respondent has, during the pendency of the

appeal, also placed the amount of ₹16,00,000/- before this Court

pursuant to the subsequent orders passed in the appeal.

5. The learned Family Court, upon consideration of the

pleadings and evidence, framed the principal questions as to

whether the husband was entitled to dissolution of marriage on the

ground of cruelty and whether he had withdrawn himself from the

company of the wife without reasonable cause. The Court noticed

that the parties had lived together only for a short period after their

marriage and had thereafter remained separate since 26.02.2017. It

also noticed the several attempts at reconciliation and settlement

which had failed. The learned Family Court found that the

allegations levelled by the wife regarding dowry demand, physical

assault, demand for unnatural sex and the husband's alleged

drinking habit had not been satisfactorily established, while the

conduct of the parties and the circumstances surrounding their

separation indicated that there was no realistic prospect of

restoration of the matrimonial relationship. The Court accordingly

granted a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and declined

the wife's prayer for restitution of conjugal rights. It further

directed payment of ₹16,00,000/- towards permanent alimony.

6. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned

counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the pleadings

and evidence available on record. The principal question which

arises for consideration is whether the material brought on record

establishes matrimonial cruelty within the meaning of Section

13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and, consequently,

MATA Nos. 164 & 165 of 2022 Page 5 of 17

whether the Appellant-wife was entitled to a decree for restitution

of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act.

7. Before examining the evidence, it would be apposite to

notice the settled principles governing the determination of

matrimonial cruelty. The expression “cruelty” has not been

defined under the Hindu Marriage Act and encompasses both

physical and mental cruelty. In Suman Kapur v. Sudhir Kapur,

reported in (2009) 1 SCC 422, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

emphasised that the entire matrimonial relationship has to be

examined and that the cumulative effect of the conduct and its

impact upon the complaining spouse, rather than an isolated

incident, assumes significance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while

explaining the concept of mental cruelty, held as below:

"39.Mental cruelty has also been examined by this Court in

Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta thus: (SCC pp.716-17,

para21) "21. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(i-a)

is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards the

other, which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind

of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the

matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a

state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the

behaviour or behavioural pattern by the other. Unlike the

case of physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to

establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of

inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of

the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and

frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the

other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending

facts and circumstances in which the two partners of

matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be

drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken

cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a

correct approach to take an instance of misbehaviour in

isolation and then pose the question whether such

behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty.

MATA Nos. 164 & 165 of 2022 Page 6 of 17

The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the

facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on

record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner

in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty

due to conduct of the other."

8. Equally relevant is the exposition of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal,

reported in (2012) 7 SCC 288, that cruelty has an inseparable

nexus with human conduct and behaviour and that no rigid or

universal standard can be prescribed for determining the same.

The social, economic and cultural circumstances in which the

parties live, their background, temperament and the nature of their

matrimonial relationship are relevant considerations. At the same

time, the Court has to examine the actual conduct proved on

record and not proceed merely on the basis of abstract standards.

Relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:

“22. The expression “cruelty” has an inseparable nexus

with human conduct or human behaviour. It is always

dependent upon the social strata or the milieu to which the

parties belong, their ways of life, relationship,

temperaments and emotions that have been conditioned by

their social status.

×× ×× ××

25. After so stating, this Court observed in Shobha Rani

case [(1988) 1 SCC 105 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 60] about the

marked change in life in modern times and the sea change

in matrimonial duties and responsibilities. It has been

observed that: (SCC p. 108, para 5)

“5. … when a spouse makes a complaint about the

treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relations,

the court should not search for standard in life. A set of

facts stigmatised as cruelty in one case may not be so in

another case. The cruelty alleged may largely depend

upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or

their economic and social conditions. It may also

MATA Nos. 164 & 165 of 2022 Page 7 of 17

depend upon their culture and human values to which

they attach importance.”

26. Their Lordships in Shobha Rani case [(1988) 1 SCC

105 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 60] referred to the observations

made in Sheldon v. Sheldon [1966 P 62 : (1966) 2 WLR

993 : (1966) 2 All ER 257 (CA)] wherein Lord Denning

stated, “the categories of cruelty are not closed”.

Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to state thus: (Shobha

Rani case [(1988) 1 SCC 105 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 60] , SCC

p. 109, paras 5-6)

“ 5 . … Each case may be different. We deal with the

conduct of human beings who are not generally similar.

Among the human beings there is no limit to the kind of

conduct which may constitute cruelty. New type of

cruelty may crop up in any case depending upon the

human behaviour, capacity or incapability to tolerate the

conduct complained of. Such is the wonderful (sic)

realm of cruelty.

6. These preliminary observations are intended to

emphasise that the court in matrimonial cases is not

concerned with ideals in family life. The court has only

to understand the spouses concerned as nature made

them, and consider their particular grievance. As Lord

Reid observed in Gollins v. Gollins [1964 AC 644 :

(1963) 3 WLR 176 : (1963) 2 All ER 966 (HL)] : (All

ER p. 972 G-H)

‘… In matrimonial affairs we are not dealing with

objective standards, it is not a matrimonial offence to

fall below the standard of the reasonable man (or the

reasonable woman). We are dealing with this

man or this woman.’”

9. Tested on the aforesaid principles, the evidence in the

present case discloses that the matrimonial relationship

deteriorated almost from its inception. The parties were married

on 13.07.2016. The evidence of the Respondent-husband is that

there was no cordial relationship even after the first month of

marriage and that the Appellant ultimately left the matrimonial

home on 26.02.2017. More significantly, the Respondent has

spoken of repeated efforts to resolve the dispute. His evidence

MATA Nos. 164 & 165 of 2022 Page 8 of 17

refers to meetings held on 15.10.2016 at Mumbai, 13.12.2016 at

Cuttack, 03/04.02.2017 at Bhubaneswar, 29.07.2017 at

Bhubaneswar and again on 05.08.2017, each of which, according

to him, was intended to resolve the matrimonial dispute but failed

to bring about any reconciliation.

10. The significance of this evidence lies not merely in the

number of meetings, but in what it demonstrates about the state of

the matrimonial relationship. The marriage had lasted only for a

few months when the parties ceased to live together. The attempts

made thereafter did not result in restoration of cohabitation. The

Respondent further stated that he addressed a letter to the

Appellant with a view to working out an amicable settlement, but

the dispute instead escalated into allegations of cruelty and dowry

harassment through the Advocate's letter dated 12.08.2018.

11. On the other hand, the Appellant levelled serious

allegations against the Respondent. She alleged, inter alia, that her

father had been compelled to make payments on different

occasions, including ₹5,00,000/- at the time of marriage and

approximately ₹3,00,000/- thereafter, besides gold ornaments and

household articles. She further alleged that her father had been

compelled to spend approximately ₹10,00,000/- for the marriage

function at a Star Hotel and, subsequently, that the Respondent

demanded a further amount of ₹20,00,000/- as a condition for

taking her back.

12. These allegations, however, required scrutiny on the

touchstone of the evidence. The Appellant's father, while

MATA Nos. 164 & 165 of 2022 Page 9 of 17

supporting her allegations, admitted in cross-examination that he

had no direct knowledge regarding allegations of unnatural sex,

regular drinking and certain instances of ill-treatment allegedly

suffered by his daughter. His evidence regarding the transfer of

₹2,00,000/- was also confined to the fact of such transfer, while

the parties gave different explanations regarding its purpose. The

evidence of the Appellant's uncle, examined as RW-3,

substantially followed the version of the father.

13. The distinction between an allegation and proof assumes

considerable significance in a matrimonial proceeding. The mere

assertion of grave conduct cannot, by itself, establish cruelty.

Equally, the failure to establish each allegation made by one

spouse does not, by itself, establish the case of the other. The

Court is required to look at the evidence as a whole and determine

whether the cumulative conduct of the parties has made the

matrimonial relationship such that the continuation of the

relationship cannot reasonably be expected.

14. There is, in fact, an important admission from the

Appellant herself. In her cross-examination, she admitted that

although the parties had lived together as husband and wife till

February, 2017, thereafter there was no conjugal relationship

between them and they were not even on talking terms. This was

not a temporary interruption in cohabitation. The evidence shows

that this state of affairs continued for years.

15. The Appellant's own evidence in the proceeding under

Section 9 further assumes significance. She stated that she had

MATA Nos. 164 & 165 of 2022 Page 10 of 17

filed the said proceeding approximately four years after the

institution of the Respondent's divorce proceeding. She also

admitted that the Respondent had not agreed to resume

cohabitation and that the conciliation efforts before the learned

Family Court had failed. She stated that she had left the

matrimonial home after the Respondent asked her to leave and

thereafter stayed at her friend's residence as a paying guest.

16. Thus, the record presents a matrimonial relationship

which, within a very short period of the marriage, had ceased to

function in any meaningful sense; the parties had separated on

26.02.2017; there was no subsequent conjugal relationship or even

communication between them; repeated efforts at reconciliation

failed; and the allegations exchanged between the parties became

progressively more serious. This is not a case where an isolated

disagreement or a transient episode is being elevated into

matrimonial cruelty. It is the sustained course of matrimonial

discord, viewed cumulatively, which assumes significance.

17. We may also note the evidence concerning the financial

expectations and circumstances of the parties, though the same

cannot, by itself, constitute cruelty. The learned Family Court

noticed that the Appellant came from a financially well-placed

family and that her father had admittedly transferred ₹2,00,000/-

to the Respondent. The Respondent explained the payment as

being towards marriage-related/household expenses, whereas the

Appellant's case was that such payments were made pursuant to

demands. The transaction itself is therefore not in dispute; what

remains disputed is its purpose. The evidence also discloses that

MATA Nos. 164 & 165 of 2022 Page 11 of 17

the Appellant had herself been employed as an Executive

Engineer prior to marriage.

18. We are conscious that a difference in financial

background, standard of living or lifestyle cannot, standing alone,

be treated as matrimonial cruelty. The relevance of these

circumstances is only in understanding the actual matrimonial

dynamics between the parties. What emerges from the record is

not merely a difference in economic status, but a relationship in

which financial allegations became part of the larger dispute,

attempts at reconciliation repeatedly failed, the parties ceased all

marital interaction within months of marriage, and the separation

continued for several years.

19. It is apposite to visit the principle laid down in V. Bhagat

v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.) (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court

has held as below:

“15. If so, the question arises what kind of cruel treatment

does clause (i-a) contemplate? In particular, what is the

kind of mental cruelty that is required to be established?

While answering these questions, it must be kept in mind

that the cruelty mentioned in clause (i-a) is a ground now

for divorce as well as for judicial separation under Section

10. Another circumstance to be kept in mind is that even

where the marriage has irretrievably broken down, the Act,

even after the 1976 (Amendment) Act, does not permit

dissolution of marriage on that ground. This circumstance

may have to be kept in mind while ascertaining the type of

cruelty contemplated by Section 13(1)(i-a).

16. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be

defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party

such mental pain and suffering as would make it not

possible for that party to live with the other. In other

words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the

parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The

MATA Nos. 164 & 165 of 2022 Page 12 of 17

situation must be such that the wronged party cannot

reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and

continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to

prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to

the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such

conclusion, regard must be had to the social status,

educational level of the parties, the society they move in,

the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living

together in case they are already living apart and all other

relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither

possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is

cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another

case. It is a matter to be Determined in each case having

regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a

case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be

had to the context in which they were made.”

20. The aforesaid principle is reiterated in Samar Ghosh v.

Jaya Ghosh, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511. The relevant

paragraphs are reproduced as below:

“101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for

guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some

instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in

dealing with the cases of ‘mental cruelty’. The instances

indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative

and not exhaustive.

(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of

the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as

would not make possible for the parties to live with each

other could come within the broad parameters of mental

cruelty.

(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire

matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear

that situation is such that the wronged party cannot

reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and

continue to live with other party.

(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount

to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of

manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree

that it makes the married life for the other spouse

absolutely intolerable

MATA Nos. 164 & 165 of 2022 Page 13 of 17

(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of

deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse

caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to

mental cruelty.

(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating

treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render

miserable life of the spouse.

(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of

one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of

the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the

resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave,

substantial and weighty.

(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect,

indifference or total departure from the normal standard of

conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or

deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental

cruelty.

(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy,

selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and

dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground

for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty

(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and

tear of the married life which happens in day to day life

would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground

of mental cruelty.

(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and

a few isolated instances over a period of years will not

amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a

fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has

deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and

behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it

extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer,

may amount to mental cruelty.

(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of

sterilization without medical reasons and without the

consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife

undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason

or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such

an act of the spouse may lead G to mental cruelty.

(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse

for considerable period without there being any physical

incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.

MATA Nos. 164 & 165 of 2022 Page 14 of 17

(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after

marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount

to cruelty.

(xiv) Where there has been a Jong period of continuous

separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial

bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction

though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that

tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of

marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the

feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations,

it may lead to mental cruelty”

21. The question is whether, having regard to the entire

matrimonial relationship and the circumstances proved, the

conduct is such that the aggrieved spouse cannot reasonably be

expected to continue living with the other. The answer has to

emerge from a comprehensive assessment of the matrimonial life

and not from a compartmentalised examination of individual

allegations. Applying the aforesaid test, we find that the learned

Family Court was justified in reaching the conclusion that the

matrimonial relationship had crossed the stage of an ordinary

matrimonial disagreement. The prolonged cessation of

cohabitation, absence of conjugal relationship and

communication, repeated but unsuccessful efforts at

reconciliation, the serious allegations exchanged between the

parties and the overall course of the relationship, when viewed

cumulatively, establish a course of conduct which falls within the

ambit of mental cruelty contemplated under Section 13(1)(ia) of

the Hindu Marriage Act. The conclusion of the learned Family

Court, therefore, does not call for interference.

22. The claim for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9

of the Hindu Marriage Act must also be examined in this

MATA Nos. 164 & 165 of 2022 Page 15 of 17

background. The Appellant had remained separate from the

Respondent since February, 2017 and admitted that there had been

no conjugal relationship or communication between them

thereafter. The Respondent's refusal to resume cohabitation cannot

be considered in isolation from the matrimonial circumstances

proved on record. Once the course of matrimonial cruelty

established against the Appellant is taken into account, it cannot

be said that the Respondent's withdrawal from her society was

without reasonable cause. The dismissal of the Appellant's petition

under Section 9, therefore, also warrants no interference.

23. There is one further circumstance which has occurred

during the pendency of these appeals and which puts the issue

concerning the decree of divorce in a still narrower compass. By

order dated 24.03.2025, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

Appellant-wife stated before this Court that the Appellant no

longer questioned the decree of divorce granted by the learned

Family Court and confined the challenge in MATA No.165 of

2022 to the quantum of permanent alimony and the issue relating

to return of dowry articles.

24. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no ground to

interfere with the decree of dissolution of marriage granted by the

learned Family Court in C.P. No.431 of 2020 or with the dismissal

of the Appellant's petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage

Act in C.P. No.32 of 2021. The findings recorded by the learned

Family Court, when tested against the evidence on record and the

settled principles governing matrimonial cruelty, do not warrant

interference in appeal.

MATA Nos. 164 & 165 of 2022 Page 16 of 17

25. As regards permanent alimony, the learned Family Court

awarded a sum of ₹16,00,000/- in favour of the Appellant. The

subsequent disclosure made before this Court also requires notice.

The Respondent's Form-16 for the financial year 2023-24 reflects

an amount of ₹16,46,916/- as having been paid/credited during

that year. At the same time, his affidavit discloses monthly

expenditure of approximately ₹1,15,000/-, including rent and

medical expenditure incurred by him and his mother. These

circumstances have to be considered alongside the fact that the

matrimonial relationship was of extremely short duration and that

the Appellant possesses independent professional qualifications

and prior employment experience.

26. Keeping in view the aforesaid parameters, the income

disclosed by the Respondent subsequent to the judgment of the

learned Family Court, his disclosed expenditure and liabilities, the

professional qualification and previous employment of the

Appellant, and, at the same time, her present non-employment, we

are of the considered view that the amount of ₹16,00,000/-

awarded by the learned Family Court requires a reasonable

enhancement. On an overall assessment of the circumstances, we

deem it appropriate to enhance the permanent alimony by a further

sum of ₹9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakh only).

27. Accordingly, the Appellant shall be entitled to a total sum

of ₹25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-five lakh) towards permanent

alimony. The sum of ₹16,00,000/- already awarded by the learned

Family Court shall stand merged in the aforesaid amount, and the

MATA Nos. 164 & 165 of 2022 Page 17 of 17

Respondent shall pay the additional sum of ₹9,00,000/- to the

Appellant towards full and final satisfaction of her claim for

permanent alimony. Upon payment of the aforesaid additional

amount, the claim of the Appellant towards permanent alimony

shall stand fully and finally satisfied, and no further claim on that

account shall survive.

28. In view of the foregoing discussion, the judgment dated

21.05.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court,

Bhubaneswar in C.P. No.431 of 2020 and C.P. No.32 of 2021

stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Subject to the

modification regarding permanent alimony, the judgment of the

learned Family Court is affirmed. As a result, both the

matrimonial appeals stand disposed of.

I Agree.

(Harish Tandon) (Chittaranjan Dash)

Chief Justice Judge

AK Pradhan/Priyanka