- (1.)The appellant in this case, as respondent before the court below, has assailed the judgment and decree dtd.28.11.2013 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur in C.P. No.20 of 2010.
The application was filed U/s.13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955 for grant of divorce in favour of the present respondent.

(2.)Bereft of all unnecessary details, the facts of the case is as follows:-
The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 07.03.1996 according to Hindu rites and customs. After marriage the newly wedded proceeded to the house of the petitioner to lead conjugal life. It is contended that both parties were from reputed family of Berhampur and both of them were well placed in their respective job at the time of marriage. It was a dowry free marriage. At the time of marriage the petitioner was working as Lecturer at Berhampur University while the respondent was working as an O.A.S. Officer under State Government of Odisha. It is the case of the petitioner that all his and his mother's expectations regarding the daughter-in-law were belied soon after the marriage because the respondent had personal vanity owing to her job and was arrogant, egoistic, instead of justifying the duties of a daughter-in-law, tried to dominate the petitioner and his old mother. She never showed any respect to the petitioner and his mother as husband and mother-in-law respectively. All co- operations and endeavours of the petitioner to change the attitude of the respondent proved in futile. It is further contended that the family members of the respondent also supported her and did not behave the petitioner with status of a son-in-law. The respondent proceeded to her parental house on 5.2.1997 for delivery. According to the petitioner during her stay at her parents' house whenever he used to visit his wife-respondent to enquire about her well-being, he was humiliated by the respondent and her family members, such behavior of the respondent caused mental disturbances and agony to the petitioner. On 29.4.1997 daughter was born at Menakshi hospital, Berhampur. But instead of coming to matrimonial house, the respondent went to her parents' house with the baby and even did not allow the petitioner and his family member to visit the new born. It was the case of the petitioner that when the petitioner expressed his desire to perform the 'Arnachhuan' function of the baby as per their family custom in his house, the respondent did not allow for the same which was just like adding salt to the injury. Since the birth of the child the respondent has not returned to the petitioner despite his several request and attempts to get the mother and child back. It is alleged that being instigated by the family members, the respondent put-forth the demand for separate living from the old mother of the petitioner as a precondition of her joining with the petitioner to which he refuted. Therefore, since then the respondent is continuing at her paternal house with the daughter, as a result of which the petitioner is forced to lead a bachelor life and deprived of all marital rights, he has no access to the respondent and never cohabited since 1997, which no doubt cruelty towards him caused by the respondent. Further it is alleged that at the time of marriage the respondent had not brought any valuables or dowry articles, but his family members had gifted the respondent gold ornaments which she had taken away while leaving for her paternal house for delivery. All efforts of the petitioner and his relatives and well-wishers to convince the respondent were of no avail, she was not to budge her decision. Therefore, finding no other alternative and without a ray of hope for reunion the petitioner brought the petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce.

(3.)The case of the respondent is that after marriage she proceeded to her matrimonial house with the petitioner with a hope to lead a happy conjugal life and performed all duties of a responsible wife and daughter- in-law following the custom and traditions of the petitioner's family. According to her at the time of marriage the petitioner was given gold ring, gold chain and cheque of Rs.40,000/- along with other articles while prior to marriage another Rs.40,000/- was given on demand of the petitioner. In spite all those, the petitioner was not satisfied with the articles brought by the respondent and soon after the marriage the petitioner and his family members started misbehaving and torturing her on demand of more dowry. Even the petitioner did not hesitate to come to the office of the respondent to ill-treat her by way of abusing and scolding in presence of her colleagues and staff and by that her official status was belittled. All these were tolerated by her with a hope for better future, but there was no change in the behavior of the petitioner and his family members. It is further alleged that during her pregnancy the respondent was not provided with neutrious food and rest as required. The respondent came to her father's house for delivery on 5.2.1997. Also at that time, on demand of the petitioner, she had to give a cheque of Rs.3000/-. This shows the behavior of a husband towards his wife. According to her even at the time of delivery the petitioner was not present with her and when the doctor insisted for a surgery for the delivery, she was compelled to come on the request of her brother only to sign in some documents required by Hospital authority, Menakshi Hospital, Berhampur. The daughter was born on 29.4.1997, but neither the petitioner nor his family members getting that news came to visit the new born. On the other hand the petitioner expressed his rage and dissatisfaction over the birth of a female child declaring that the respondent was to take care of the baby as she gave birth to a female child, which expressed the cruel attitude of the petitioner. it is also contended that during November, 1997 the respondent was about to join the petitioner in spite of all unwarranted behavior of the petitioner, but all of a sudden, in the month of October, 1997 the petitioner barged into the office of the respondent and forcibly asked her to sign on a document to which she refused and by that the petitioner created an untoward incident. It is asserted despite all attempts by the family member of the respondent for an amicable settlement of the disputes between the parties, no co-operation was extended by the petitioner and thereby the petitioner is solely responsible for causing dismay to the family life of the parties. in the circumstances it is contended that the petition for divorce may be rejected. On the other hand contending that the respondent does not want to continue with the petitioner, the respondent demands for judicial separation as counter claim.