The court affirmed divorce on grounds of desertion, while addressing the procedural necessities for the award of permanent alimony, concluding that conduct does not entirely negate entitlement.

1. These three appeals between the same parties are based on a soured matrimonial relationship, preferred by either of the parties and have therefore been heard together and are being disposed by a common order.

2. The parties were married on 14-12-1999 at the approximate age of 27 and 25 years respectively. They separated as early as 22-3-2000. The appellant - husband filed an application for divorce under S.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') on 16-6-2011 before the Family Judge, Raipur on grounds of cruelty and desertion. On 1-10-2011, the respondent - wife filed an application before the Family Judge, Bilapur under S.9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The suit for divorce filed by the Appellant at Raipur was disposed on jurisdictional grounds leading to institution of a fresh suit for divorce on the same grounds before the Family Judge, Bilapur on 4-2-2012 registered as Civil Suit No. 62 - A / 2012. By a common judgment dated 14-11-2014, the family Judge granted divorce to the Appellant on grounds of desertion but rejected the plea of cruelty. The application for restitution of conjugal rights by the respondent was rejected. Permanent alimony of Rs. 30,00,000/- under S.25 of the Act was granted to the Respondent. FA (M) No. 116 of 2014 has been filed by the Respondent challenging grant of divorce. FA (M) No. 130 of 2014 has also been filed by the Respondent assailing rejection of her application for restitution of conjugal rights and FA (M) No. 134 of 2014 has been filed by the appellant questioning the grant of permanent alimony. During pendency of the proceedings before the family court the dispute regarding maintenance pendente lite travelled upto the Supreme Court when it was enhanced from Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 25,000/- by order dated 29-10-2013 observing that at the final stage the determination of alimony / maintenance shall 'obviously' be considered by the appropriate Court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Family Judge after consideration of evidence has arrived at a finding that the Respondent had deserted the matrimonial home on 22-3-2000 without just and unreasonable cause and granted divorce under S.13(1)(b) of the Act. Even if the charge of cruelty has not been proved, grant of permanent alimony of such a large amount essentially amounts to giving an advantage or benefit to the respondent for her own wrongful conduct in having been the home breaker. The primary principle of law is that no person can be permitted to take advantage of his or her own wrong. The second limb of the submission was that S.24 of the Act provides for grant of maintenance pendente lite on an application made for the purpose by the aggrieved. S.25 of the Act likewise provides for grant of permanent alimony and maintenance at the time of final decree on an application made for the purpose.

4. Even if maintenance pendente lite had been granted during pendency of the proceedings, it was mandatory for the aggrieved to prefer an application separately for grant of permanent alimony if so desirous. Once such application is filed and the other side answers it, the provision perceives a mini enquiry respective capacities to arrive at an adjudged determination of quantum after considering various aspects as mentioned in S.25(1) of the Act including the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case. If judicial discretion is wide the Court is also required to keep in mind various factors such as a drop in income, other familial responsibility and other intervening fa