IMPORTANT POINT
Court should take into consideration factors, such as possession of property by either of spouses, their independent source of income, their social status etc.

Ramesh Ranganathan, J.—C.M.A. No.1056 of 2006 is filed by the appellant husband against the order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, in OPNo.64 of 2004 dated 17.8.2006, dismissing his petition seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petition, in C.M.A. M.P. No.200 of 2014 in C.M.A. No.1056 of 2006, is filed by the petitioner-wife against the respondent-husband under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) for grant of Rs.25,00,000 towards her permanent alimony and Rs.20,00,000 to Kumari K. Navya, (the daughter of the petitioner and the respondent), towards her maintenance, education and marriage expenses.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was performed as per Hindu rites on 22.2.1996 and they were blessed with a female child by name Kumari K. Navya who is now studying Engineering. However, for various reasons which do not necessitate elaboration, their marital ties broke down, and the respondent filed OP No. 64 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal (for short, ‘the trial Court’), to dissolve their marriage under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Act on the ground of cruelty. The said petition was dismissed by the trial Court declining grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court dated 17.8.2006, the respondent preferred C.M.A.No.1056 of 2006 before this Court.

3. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an affidavit before this Court stating that she had no objection for grant of divorce as there was no possibility of their now living together after a long lapse of 17 years. She requested that she be granted permanent alimony creating adequate security for payment of the said amount. Sri J. Prabhakar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, in view of the long and excruciating legal battle between the petitioner and the respondent for the past more than 17 years, there is no possibility of their now living together. Since the petitioner has conveyed her no objection for the grant of a decree of divorce dissolving their marriage without admitting the acts of cruelty attributed to her, and as there is no possibility of their living together after a long separation of 17 years and a bitter legal battle for the past more than a decade, a decree of divorce is granted, and the marriage between the respondent and the petitioner is dissolved. C.M.A. No.1056 of 2006 is disposed of accordingly.

4. It is the petitioners case, in C.M.A.M.P. No.200 of 2014 in C.M.A. No.1056 of 2006, that the respondent did not provide them with even the minimum sum required to meet their bare necessities; she is being paid Rs.3,500 p.m. towards maintenance, that too only because of the orders passed in the maintenance case filed by her under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’); the respondent has met the expenses for their daughter Kumari K. Navya only when a specific direction was issued by the Court; the respondent is a Commercial Tax Officer, drawing a monthly salary of Rs.60,000 p.m. he acquired valuable movable and immovable properties including a house at Vanastalipuram; he also owns and possesses a 500 square yards site at Desaipet Village, Warangal District; he has been in service for the last 20 years and, with the income from his employment and on availing a loan from his General Provident Fund account, he acquired huge properties; not only does the respondent possess movable and immovable properties, he is also earning a substantial monthly salary as a Commercial Tax Officer; and he possesses sufficient means to maintain the petitioner and their daughter.

5. It is also the petitioners case that she is not employed, she has no source of income even for bare sustenance; earlier she relied on her brother for her survival, but he died in the year 2007; thereafter some of her relatives ha