P.K.TRIPATHY,J. - (1.)RESPONDENT in Civil Proceeding No. 115 of 1998 of the Court of Judge, Family Court, Cuttack has filed this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (in short 'the Act 1984') challenging to the decree of divorce passed against her on the application under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act 1955'). For the sake of convenience, appellant and the respondent, hereinafter are referred to as the wife and husband respectively.
(2.)IN his application under Section 13 of the Act 1955, read with Section 7 of the Act, 1984, the husband sought for a decree of divorce on the assertion of facts that marriage between him and the wife was solemnised on 5.3.1991, they lead a happy conjugal life for about six months and thereafter on 22.10.91 wife went to Bhubaneswar to her father's place on the occasion of Kumar Purnima and wilfuly disassociated herself from the husband since then. His efforts to bring her back did not succeed even during illness of his father in March, 1992 followed by death on 6.4.1992 so also on the marriage of his younger brother on 27.5.1996. He further alleged that the wife demanded for his transfer and posting at Bhubaneswar so that she would stay in her father's place along with her husband and when the husband did not yield to that request the aforesaid incidents followed. He has alleged that the aforesaid conduct of the wife has resulted in cruelty on him so also amounts to desertion and therefore a decree of divorce should be granted in his favour. It thus appears from the aforesaid allegation that the husband has sought for the decree of divorce as per provision of law in Clauses (i a) and (i b) of Sub section (1) of Section 13 of the Act. 1955.
In her written statement, in vernacular, the wife except admitting to the factum of marriage has denied to the allegations of cruelty and desertion. She has pleaded that she was selected by the grand father in law and the father in law to be a bride in their family because of her good nature and conduct. It is the ill treatment of the mother in law and hostile behaviour of the brother in laws which resulted in the husband leaving her in her parents house in October, 1991. She has further pleaded that she countered for a re union and came to her husband's house in the year 1992 at the time of death of her father in law but she was not accepted in that family. She has also alleged that the ill treatment was on account of her father not favouring the demand of her husband's married sisters, relating to providing a job and also for not fulfilling the demand of articles like. T. V. etc. She has also stated in her written statement that she never demanded nor desired that her husband should come and stay at Bhubaneswar. She has also stated that she did not initiate any litigation against her husband or in laws with the hope of a re union and that her husband notwithstanding allowing her to stay in her parents house remained in touch with her and when she approached the Mahila Commission for an amicable settlement, the husband became cautious and filed the case as preventive step.

(3.)BOTH the spouses relying on their ocular statements tendered evidence at the time of hearing of the matrimonial proceeding. Neither of them examined any other witness nor tendered any documentary evidence. Learned Judge, FamilyCourt on perusal of the aforesaid pleadings and evidence recorded he finding that at the time of conciliation the wife insisted and wanted to live separately from her in laws which was totally impracticable on the part of the husband. She also deposed in Court that she was not willing to stay with the husband. Recording such finding learned Judge, Family Court, found it difficult for reunion between the parties and accordingly granted the decree of divorce subject to payment of permanent alimony of Rs. 50,000/ . In that respect, in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment learned Judge, Family Court quoted the evidence of the wife in the following manner :
'I am not ready and willing to stay with the petitioner at Jajpur. My husband is obedient to his mother and brother, and thereby neglecting me.' In course of hearing, we perused the evidence on record. It appears from the deposition of the wife that she has stated in cross examination that : '3. The petitioner left me in may father's house after the marriage on 23.10.91. It is not a fact that I came away suo motu from the marital home deserting the petitioner. Again I came and stayed in the marital home from Dec, 1991 till February, 1992 and thereafter came to my father's house. The petitioner left me in my father's house. It is not a fact that I came away out of my own accord. It is not a fact that I am not willing to stay at Jajpur. I had lodged a grievance petition before the Mahila Commission against my mother in law and brother in law. It is not a fact that I am not ready and willing to stay with the petitioner at Jajpur. My husband is obedient to his mother and brother and thereby neglecting me. It is not a fact that I am deposing falsehood suppressing the real state of fact by stating that I have deserted the petitioner. It is not a fact that there was no dowry demand.'