JUDGMENT :

N.K. Chandravanshi, J.

1. As both the above appeals arise out of the judgment and decree dated 24-12-2019 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 47-A/2018, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. FA (MAT) No. 34/2020 (Manjit Jaiswal v. Aakriti Jaiswal) has been preferred against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 24-12-2019, whereby the appellant-husband has been directed to pay a lump-sum permanent alimony of Rs. 6 Lakh and Rs. 20 Lakh towards the value of articles and cash given to the respondent-wife as Stridhan.

3. FA (MAT) No. 132/2020 (Aakriti Jaiswal v. Manjit Jaiswal) has been preferred by the wife against the above judgment and decree praying for enhancement of the lump-sum amount granted as permanent alimony and also the amount granted against the property, under Section 25 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

For convenience, hereinafter parties shall be referred as 'husband' and 'wife'.

4. Vide the impugned judgment, a decree of dissolution of marriage between the parties has also been granted in favour of the husband, but this portion of the judgment has not been challenged and the same has attained finality.

5. Brief facts of the case are that the husband and wife got married on 5-2-2017. However, their matrimonial relations went well only for about 6-7 months, thereafter, their relations became bitter. Attempt for settlement went in vain. On 7-2-2018, husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act of 1955”), which was granted in his favour. During pendency of the divorce petition, the wife filed an application under Section 25 and 27 of the Act of 1955 stating therein that at or about the time of marriage, huge amount in cash, various ornaments of gold and silver and other articles were given by her family members, which are her Stridhan. Hence, they be returned to her and Rs.75,000/- per month be also granted to her for her maintenance, from the husband. Detail of cash amount, ornaments and various other articles, has been enclosed by her as Schedule - ‘A’ along with her application.

6. In reply, husband has pleaded that Rs. 12 Lakh were given by the family of wife through bank for arrangement of marriage function and purchase of jewelry and other articles, which were spent for the same. Various ornaments and other articles were given by the husband and his family members to the wife at the time of engagement and the marriage, which have been mentioned in Schedule - ‘B’ enclosed with the reply filed by the husband. It has been further pleaded that when she left the house of the husband in the month of September, 2017, she had taken all the ornaments with her. Utensils, furniture, box, almira, were also purchased at the instance of her family, which are still remaining with the husband and he is ready to return the aforesaid articles. Except above, no other cash amount or articles had been given by her family. After hearing both the parties vide impugned judgment dated 24-12-2019, learned Family Court granted the decree of divorce in favour of the husband. Vide impugned judgment, also the wife was granted a lump-sum amount towards permanent alimony and return of Stridhan. This later part of the judgment has been challenged by both the parties in these appeals.

7. Learned counsel for the husband would submit that learned Family Court has granted decree of divorce in favour of husband on the ground of cruelty meted out to him by the wife. Thus, wife is responsible for annulment of their marital relation. Hence, as per provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 1955, she is not entitled for permanent alimony, despite that, learned Family Court has saddled the liability upon him to pay permanent alimony, which is not sustainable under the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 1955. Apart from that, wife is doing Ph.D. and she is getting stipend of Rs.35,000/- per month. Thus, she