The court's decision emphasized the importance of considering the duration of the marriage and the financial circumstances of the parties in determining the adequacy of permanent alimony.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal filed under Section 28(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the wife, challenge is confined only to the quantum of permanent alimony granted by the trial Court while allowing the petition filed by the husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Act granting a decree of divorce.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

3. FACTS: The marriage of petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 05.03.2001 at Kollegal. However, respondent had ran away from the reception. Later on they had returned to the matrimonial home. Within half an hour, the respondent went to the bathroom and had consumed tablets. She had disclosed that she was suffering from stomach pain and was unfit for marriage or to have children. On the next day, she was crying with stomach ache and therefore, the petitioner had to take her to parent's house and requested them to get her medical care. Even though the petitioner tried to get her medical care, the same did not yield any result. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent had not been consummated. Even though panchayaths were held, the respondent did not cooperate and ultimately, she continued to stay in her parents house. As on the date of filing the petition, respondent had deserted the petitioner for six years. The conduct of the respondent in depriving the petitioner of matrimonial cohabitation amounts to cruelty. In the absence of any other alternative, he has filed this petition.

4. Earlier, the petitioner had filed M.C.No.2/2004 for divorce. However, though the respondent filed objections, later on she came forward to join the petitioner and lead a happy married life. Therefore, the petitioner got the petition closed on 21.09.2005. However, the respondent did not obey the Court order. On the other hand, at the instigation of her parents, she filed a false complaint against the petitioner and his family members. For no fault of his, the petitioner was arrested and detained in jail. The respondent also gave false complaint to the Education Department where the petitioner was working. Therefore, he was suspended and later on, his suspension was revoked. Respondent also filed Crl.Misc.54/2005 for maintenance. In the light of these, petitioner had sought a decree of divorce.

5. After due service of notice, the respondent appeared through counsel and filed written statement admitting the fact that their marriage was solemnized on 05.03.2001 at Kollegal. However, she had denied that she walked out of the reception and did not cooperate with the petitioner to consummate the marriage. However, she admits that the marriage is not consummated. The respondent denied that she told the petitioner that she is suffering from stomach ache and is not able to bare children. The filing of the petition in M.C.No.2/2004 by the petitioner and withdrawal of the same by way of joint memo dated 21.09.2005 was also admitted.

6. The respondent has alleged that the marriage was performed by giving dowry in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, watch, gold ornaments and clothes worth Rs.1,25,000/- and cash of Rs.30,000/-, to enable the petitioner to get a government job. She has also alleged that after the 'Beegara oota' held at the petitioner's place, he left the respondent to her parent's house and did not take her back. It is the petitioner who had refused to consummate the marriage saying that he is not willing to lead a marital life. After M.C.No.2/2004 was filed by the petitioner, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. To avoid payment of maintenance, petitioner withdrew M.C.No.2/2004. He took her to the matrimonial home for a period of seven days. However, during this period, the respondent was harassed and ill treated by the petitioner and his family members and therefore, she had filed a complaint in Cr.No.97/2005. Since then she has been living in her parental home.

7. Bas