IMPORTANT POINT
Since by judgment and decree of court marriage between parties dissolved, it more beneficial for wife, to take one time permanent alimony rather to bank upon monthly maintenance allowance.

R.Banumathi, C.J.—This First Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is preferred against the judgment, by which the appellant (husband) has been directed to pay to respondent (wife) a sum of Rs.3,00,000 (Rupees Three Lacs) as permanent alimony and further monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.4,000 (Rupees Four Thousand) per month till she gets remarried, vide the judgment dated 18.1.2012 and the decree signed on 23.1.2012 passed in M.T.S. No.89 of 2006 by Shri Ram Rudra Prasad Deo, Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh.

2. In fact, the appellant had filed the said suit vide M.T.S. No.89 of 2006 seeking for divorce against the respondent-wife where the suit was allowed and decree of divorce is granted and also permanent alimony of Rs.3,00,000 (Rupees Three Lacs) and monthly allowance of Rs.4,000 (Rupees Four Thousand) have been awarded to the respondent-wife. Being aggrieved by the amount of permanent alimony and monthly maintenance fixed by court below, the appellant-husband has preferred this appeal.

3. Briefly stated the case of the appellant is as under:

Appellant (husband) got married with the respondent (wife) on 21.5.1990 at Hazaribagh according to Hindu rites and customs. Thereafter, both of them started leading their conjugal life at Balidih in the District of Bokaro. The father-in-law of the appellant took the respondent to his house at Hazaribagh after few days of the marriage with an assurance that the respondent would come back to her husband’s house after Gauna (second ritual of a marriage).

It has been further pleaded that after much pressure of the relatives, Gauna ceremony was performed because father of the respondent was not agreed and then the respondent came to her matrimonial home at Baildih in the month of November, 1991. The respondent stayed there about one month and then the father of the respondent started giving wrong advice to her and on 15.10.1992 she went back to her father’s house. The appellant persuaded her several times to bring her back, but in vain. Lastly, on 13.4.1999, the respondent refused to restore the conjugal life with the appellant and demanded Rs.2,000 (Rupees Two Thousand) per month as maintenance from the appellant.

It has further been alleged that the father-in-law of the appellant asked him to live as Gharjamai (permanently at father-in-law’s place) at Hazaribagh. It has also been averred that the respondent has finally withdrawn herself from the society of the appellant and deserted him without any reasonable excuse since 15.10.1992. Then the appellant had filed a suit for Restitution Of Conjugal Rights bearing M.T.S. No.22 of 1999 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and after hearing both the parties 3rd Additional District Judge, Bokaro passed a judgment on 22.11.2002 in favour of the appellant on contest by which suit for Restitution Of Conjugal Rights was decreed with a direction to the respondent to resume their conjugal life within three months from the date of the judgment. The decree was not complied with by the respondent and therefore the appellant filed a suit seeking for decree of divorce for the dissolution of marriage between appellant and respondent vide M.T.S. No.89 of 2006 whose judgment and decree have been challenged before this Court, so far as it relates to permanent alimony and maintenance allowance.

4. Respondent-Maya Devi appeared in the said matrimonial case i.e. M.T.S. Case No.89 of 2006 and filed her written statement. In her statement, she admitted that after the marriage with the appellant for a period of about one and half months and during her short stay at her matrimonial house, she was not treated properly by the appellant and by his family members. She alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty for the demand of dowry and the family members of her husband i.e. brother, brother’s wife and mother used to abuse and assault her and did not provide proper food and clothes. The respondent fur