JUDGMENT :

SANJAY GOWDA, J.

The appellant/husband has preferred this appeal challenging the decree by which his marriage with the respondent/wife was dissolved and also the rejection of his counter claim for restitution of conjugal rights.

2. The appellant/husband is also aggrieved by the order directing him to pay permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000/-to the respondent/wife and also litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.

3. At the outset, it is to be stated here that this Court, on 30.09.2015, while considering the application for condonation of delay and the application for stay, directed that the order impugned would be stayed subject to the condition that the appellant deposits a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-within a period of three weeks, failing which, it was made clear that the interim order granted would stand vacated. Despite this order to deposit a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-in order to get the benefit of the stay, the appellant has chosen not to comply with the said order.

4. On 21.09.2020, during the course of hearing, when this Court noticed that the conditions imposed in the interim order had not been complied with and thus the interim order stood vacated, appellant’s counsel submitted that the appellant was not pressing his appeal with regard to the dissolution of the marriage, but was confining his appeal only to the order directing him to pay permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000/-. This Court also observed that since no amount had been paid by the appellant to the respondent, the appellant was not even justified in prosecuting the appeal.

5. At this stage, a request was made by the appellant’s counsel to secure instructions in the matter and explore the possibility of paying some amount. The matter was accordingly adjourned to 28.09.2020.

6. On 28.09.2020, this Court observed that though a specific order was made to enable the appellant to comply with the conditions imposed in the interim order, no compliance was forthcoming and this Court felt it necessary to direct the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-into the Bank Account of the respondent, (the details of which had already been furnished) within a period of four weeks. It was observed that if the said order was not complied with, the appeal itself would be liable for dismissal and adjourned the matter to 02.11.2020.

7. After passing of the said order, learned counsel for the appellant has made an application on 21.10.2020 seeking to recall the order dated 28.09.2020 by which appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-and he has also made one more application for recalling that portion of the order dated 21.09.2020 pertaining to the submission of the counsel with regard to not pressing of the appeal for dissolution of marriage.

8. After hearing the Learned Counsel, by a separate order dated 02.11.2020, we have dismissed both the applications. As a consequence, the only question to be considered in the present appeal is:

“Whether the Family Court was justified in awarding a permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000/-to the respondent/wife?”

9. The respondent/wife had instituted proceedings for dissolution of marriage under Section 27(1)(a)(d) and 27(1A)(i) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. She principally contended that the appellant was in the habit of having extra marital affairs and treating her cruelly and therefore, she was entitled to a decree of divorce.

10. The said claim for divorce was stoutly opposed and a counter claim was also raised, under which the appellant sought for restitution of conjugal rights.

11. The Family Court, on consideration of the evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the allegations regarding extra marital affairs were not proved, but the allegations of the wife regarding cruelty meted out to her by her husband had been proved and so also her allegation that her husband had been guilty of rape, sodomy, bestiality, were also proved. The Family Court accordingly dissolved the marriage by granting a decree of divorce. The Family Court al