The main legal point established is that conduct amounting to mental cruelty can be grounds for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and the court has the discretion to enhance the permanent alimony based on the social status of the parties.

A. K. PARICHHA, J.

( 1 ) BOTH the appeals are directed against the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No. 182 of 1997, wherein the learned Judge, Family Court has granted divorce by dissolving the marriage between the parties subject to payment of permanent alimony of Rs. 40. 000/- by the husband to the wife.

( 2 ) PANIGRAHI Subash Ch. Dash @ Sahoo, (hereinafter called as "the husband") filed Civil Proceeding No. 182 of 1997 under Sections 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act for declaration that the marriage between him and Usharani Lenka (hereinafter to be called as "the wife") is null and void and also for a decree of divorce dissolving their marriage. The case of the husband as set out in the civil proceeding is that his marriage with Usharani Lenka was solemnized on 22-5-1997 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. But the marriage never consummated as the wife refused to have sexual relationship with him on the 4th night of their marriage and also on subsequent nights. Suspecting that the wife had recently undergone an abortion or has some permanent gynaecological problem, he insisted for medical examination, but the wife refused to do so and left the matrimonial home only few days after the marriage. Since then she has been living with her parents and has avoided the company of the husband. All attempts to bring her back having failed, the husband was constrained to file the civil proceeding for dissolution of the marriage and a decree for divorce.

( 3 ) THE wife in the written statement while denying all the allegations of the husband, pleaded, inter alia, that the husband and his family members demanded cash dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and when that demand was not met by her parents, they 111 treated her and threatened to kill her and so in order to save her own life, she had to leave the-matrimonial home and take shelter in the house of her parents. She claimed that the husband filed the Civil Proceeding for dissolution of marriage on false grounds in order to protect himself as well as his family members from the criminal prosecution for dowry demand and torture.

( 4 ) CONSIDERING the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge, Family Court framed as many as four issues, received evidence from the parties and on consideration of the evidence and submission of the respective parties, passed a decree- of divorce subject to payment of permanent alimony of Rs. 40,000/- to the wife within two months from the date of the order. Aggrieved, the wife has preferred Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2001 chalenging the decree of divorce and the quantum of permanent alimony. The husband has also filed Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2001 challenging the award of permanent alimony as a condition precedent for decree of divorce. Since both the appeals arise out of the same order and involve identical questions of fact and law, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

( 5 ) THE husband has taken the ground of adultery and cruelty on the part of the wife. The wife, on the other hand, has taken the ground of ill treatment and dowry demand on the part of the husband and his family members. Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") contemplates the grounds of voidable marriage. Sub-section (1) (a) of Section 12 of the Act says that any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity if that marriage has r ot been consummated owing to the impotence of the wife. Sub-section (1) (d) of Section. 12 of the Act stipulates that the marriage would be voidable and can be annulled by a decree of nullity if the respondent-wife was at the time of marriage pregnant by some person other than the husband. In the present case, the husband has alleged that the wife was probably pregnant by some other person and she terminated that. pregnancy just before the