JUDGMENT :

R. Subbiah, J.

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 19 of The Family Courts Act against the Order and Decreetal Order dated 27.03.2018 passed in Original Petition No. 4224 of 2011 on the file of the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.)

The appellant-wife has come forward with this appeal questioning the legality and/or validity of the order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the VI Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai, in OP No. 4224 of 2011 filed by her.

2. The appellant-wife has filed Original Petition No.4224 of 2011 before the Family Court under Sections 27 (d), 37 and 38 of The Special Marriage Act seeking to (i) dissolve the marriage solemnised between her and the respondent on 04.11.2003 under Marriage No. 483 of 2003 before the Marriage Officer, Mumbai on the ground of cruelty (ii) grant permanent custody of the minor Aryana to her and (iii) to direct the respondent to pay to her a sum of Rs.10 crores as permanent alimony and for costs.

3. It is seen from the records that the appellant and the respondent were employed in KPMG Office in Mumbai. During the course of such employment, they fell in love with each other and decided to get married. Accordingly, the marriage between them was solemnised on 04.11.2003 under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, which was registered in the office of the Marriage Officer, Mumbai under M.No. 483 of 2003. After such marriage, a formal ceremony was conducted at Iskon Temple, Mumbai. Thereafter, the appellant and the respondent commenced their matrimonial journey at Bangalore, where they lived happily together for some time. Due to the wedlock between the appellant and the respondent, a female child was born on 06.08.2004 and she is named Aryana.

4. According to the appellant-wife, after the birth of the child, matrimonial differences have cropped up between her and the respondent. The appellant had cited several instances in the Original Petition filed before the Family Court and contended that she was subjected to matrimonial cruelty by the respondent-husband. On 07.11.2011, the appellant left the matrimonial company of the respondent and residing in her parents house along with the minor daughter. Thereafter, she filed the instant Original Petition for dissolution of the marriage solemnised between her and the appellant and for other relief.

5. The respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit in the Original Petition denying each and every one of the allegations made by the appellant in the Original Petition. According to the respondent, it was he, who was subjected to matrimonial cruelty by the appellant.

6. Before the Family Court, the appellant/wife examined herself as PW1 and marked Exs. P1 to P7. The respondent/husband examined himself as RW1 and filed Exs. R1 to R3. It is seen from the records that during the pendency of the matrimonial proceedings, the respondent/husband agreed for grant of a divorce as prayed for by the appellant/wife, which was also recorded by the Family Court in Para No.22 of the order. Notwithstanding the same, the Family Court appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and found that the appellant did not prove the allegations she made in the Original Petition relating to matrimonial cruelty. On the other hand, the Family Court has found that it is the appellant/wife who has not discharged her matrimonial obligations as a dutiful wife. However, by order dated 27.03.2018, the Family Court granted a decree of divorce, since the respondent-husband had agreed for granting divorce, dissolving the marriage solemnised between the appellant and the respondent on 04.11.2003. The Family Court also concluded that since the appellant did not prove the allegations made in the Original Petition relating to cruelty, she is not entitled to grant of permanent alimony. The Family Court also reasoned that it was the appellant/wife who sought for dissolution of the marriage and therefore, the question of directing the respondent-husband to pay