Paliwal, J. -- 1. First Appeal No.251/10 under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (in short “the Act 1984”) preferred by Mohan Swaroop Chauhan and First Appeal No.267/10 under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (in short “the Act 1984”) preferred by Smt. Mohini Chauhan are being disposed of by this common judgment as both the appeals have arisen out of judgment dated 10th September, 2010 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior, in H.M.A. No.25-A/10. Smt. Mohini Chauhan in her appeal (F.A. No.267/10) has challenged the decree of divorce passed under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, while Mohan Swaroop Chauhan has preferred the appeal (F.A. No.251/10) against the direction of payment of Rs.10,000/- per month as permanent alimony to his wife Smt. Mohini Chauhan.

2. Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned counsel for appellant-Mohini Chauhan in F.A. No.267/10 after arguing the matter to some extent, submitted that he doesn’t wish to challenge the decree of divorce passed against appellant-Smt. Mohini Chauhan. Therefore, F.A. No.267/10 preferred by appellant-Smt. Mohini Chauhan is dismissed as not pressed.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant-Mohan Swaroop Chauhan has contended that learned Family Court has committed a legal error in granting permanent alimony to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent-wife without any inquiry. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Family Court has not considered the conduct of the parties while fixing the amount of permanent alimony. It has been further submitted that the respondent-wife has filed an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned Family Court while holding that respondent-wife is an income tax payee and having PAN card and bank accounts, dismissed the application vide order dated 3.2.2009. Against this order, F.A. No.73/09 was preferred but the same was held as not maintainable, therefore, Writ Petition No.3273/09 was filed before this Court and this Court on the consensus has directed the appellant-husband to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as interim maintenance. It is submitted that the learned Family Court has failed to consider the fact that appellant is unemployed and the respondent-wife being in consultancy work, is having sufficient source of income. She is also an income tax payee. It is further submitted that the Family Court, Jhansi, has passed an order on the application under section 125 of CrPC preferred by the respondent-wife directing appellant husband to pay Rs.12,000/- per month as maintenance. The learned Family Court has no considered that the appellant is already paying Rs.12,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent, therefore, the order directing the appellant to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent-wife as permanent alimony till her life or remarriage is illegal and deserves to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife, on the other hand, has raised the question of maintainability of this appeal submitting that the appellant-husband has not complied the order of payment of permanent alimony, therefore, this appeal is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in Dinesh Kumar v. Santosh Devi [2007 AIR (All) 30], in which the trial Court has directed the husband to deposit the litigation expenses and maintenance to the wife, but the order was not complied with. It was held that in case expenses are not paid to the wife, the Court cannot compel her to file the written statement or pronounce ex-party judgment under Order 8 rule 10 of CPC. The trial Court should have dismissed the divorce petition for non-compliance of its order.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife has further submitted that separate inquiry for awarding permanent alimony is not required. The evidence is led by both the parties. Learned Family Court has not committed any error in granting the permanent alimony of Rs.10,000