The court's decision was primarily based on the provisions of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which govern the determination of maintenance payable to a spouse.

( 1 ) THE two points which arise for consideration in this appeal are (1) whether the quantum of the permanent alimony awarded by the lower court to the appellant is inadequate; and (2) whether the lower court has erred in refusing to direct the respondent to return the properly claimed by the appellant.

( 2 ) THE facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are as under:

( 3 ) APPELLANT and respondent were respectively the husband and the wife. Appellant filed a petition, M. C. No. 81/1981, in the Court of City Civil Judge, bangalore ("lower court") praying for a decree against the respondent for divorce; for permanent alimony and for the return of her articles described in the schedule to the petition. By then, the husband had filed a petition, M. C. No. 59/1981, in the lower court praying for a decree of divorce against the wife. The lower court, by its common judgment dated 3-12-1982, allowed M. C. No. 81/1981 filed by the wife granting her a decree of divorce and monthly alimony of Rs. 200/ -. However, her prayer for direction to the husband to return her articles was rejected. The lower court also rejected the petition, M. C. No. 59/1981, filed by her husband. Not being satisfied with the quantum of alimony and the refusal to direct the return of her articles, the wife has filed this appeal against the decree in M. C. No. 81/1981. 3a. We have heard Sri S. G. Sundaraswamy, learned advocate for the appellant. Respondent though served in the appeal, was neither present at the hearing nor was he represented.

( 4 ) IT will have to be seen, in the first instance, as to whether the quantum of alimony awarded by the lower court is inadequate, as contended for. Sri sundaraswamy, learned advocate for the appellant, sought to support his contention by placing reliance on the decision in Gengler v Gengler, 1976 (2) All ER p. 81. According to him, the lower court's approach in deciding the quantum of alimony in the present case, should not have been different from the one pointed out in gengler's case (supra) thus:"now the approach in divorce proceedings is that which was at last approved in Wachtel v Watchtel, (1973)1 All ER 829 : (1973) Fain 72 by the court of appeal, namely that one starts with the wife having one-third of the joint incomes less her own earnings. I need not go into the old cases of Ward v Ward, (1947)2 all ER 713 : (1948) p. 62 and Jones v Jones, (1929) All ER Rep. 424. Social conditions and the financial and other status of wives and women have greatly changed since those days. This court has already said, and I repeat, that there is no reason, in my opinion, why the justices should not start with the one-third approach. Counsel for the husband realistically agrees that the joint income is the husband's gross income and the wife's net income. That is the correct approach. One takes the gross income, that is his income before tax, because the maintenance order is deducted from his wage or salary before tax is calculated, and the wife's net income because that is all she receives to live on after tax is deducted from her wage or salary. Allowable deductions from a husband's gross earnings are the statutory insurance contributions and travelling expenses to work. "though we gave our anxious consideration to the said contention of Sri S. G. Sundaraswamy, we have found it difficult to accede to the same because of the express provisions in Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ("the Act"), laying down the approach required to be adopted by courts in determining the quantum of maintenance under the Act. In other words, when the Act, itself provides the opportunity for determining the quantum of alimony or maintenance to a Hindu wife or husband, it would not be necessary to look back lo the history of English matrimonial Law, for guidance. In this connection, we can usefully refer to the following passage in the commentary of Mulla's Hindu Law (13th Edition) at page 740, which r