Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The marriage between Jitendra Saksena and Mallika Saxena was solemnized on 29.11.2001 according to Hindu rituals and customs. (!)

2. The respondent, Mallika Saxena, disclosed her age as 29 years during pregnancy tests, but records later revealed she was actually born in 1968, making her four years older than the appellant. The appellant contended that this concealment of age and pregnancy was fraudulent and sought annulment of marriage on these grounds. (!) (!) (!)

3. The respondent became pregnant shortly after marriage, with ultrasound evidence indicating a pregnancy within the first few weeks of marriage. The respondent underwent an abortion without informing the appellant. The appellant alleged that this was done under duress and due to torture by the respondent and her family. (!) (!)

4. The respondent sent a legal notice for mutual divorce, demanding permanent alimony, which the appellant agreed to upon certain conditions. The appellant filed a petition for annulment of marriage due to concealment of age and pregnancy, while the respondent filed for maintenance, which was dismissed. (!) (!)

5. Multiple cases were filed and dismissed in the Family Court, including suits for annulment and maintenance, reflecting ongoing matrimonial disputes. (!) (!)

6. During proceedings, both parties appeared before the court multiple times, and attempts were made to settle the dispute amicably through mediation, leading to a mutual understanding to resolve the matter outside the court. (!) (!)

7. The court observed that the marriage had become irretrievably broken down due to incompatibility and the total disappearance of emotional connection, indicating that the marriage could not be salvaged. (!) (!)

8. The court determined that the marriage was effectively over, and the primary concern was to fix a just and reasonable amount of permanent alimony. (!) (!)

9. Considering the circumstances, the court ordered the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs as permanent alimony to the wife, with half payable within three months and the remaining half within the next three months. Both parties were directed to withdraw pending cases accordingly. (!) (!)

10. The appeal was finally disposed of on these terms, emphasizing the importance of a pragmatic approach to matrimonial disputes, especially when the marriage is deemed irretrievably broken. (!) (!)

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.