JUDGMENT 1. THIS is an application under Article 133 of the Constitution of India for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment and order dated 14th December, 1973 passed in F. M. A. No. 182 of 1972 fixing alimony of Rs. 400/- per month to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent. 2. THE petitioner is the husband. He married the respondent on the 1st december, 1964 under the Hindu rites at 12/1, Alipore Park Road, P. S. Alipore within the District of 24-Parganas. Within a few months the petitioner filed a petition for judicial separation against the respondent wife in the court of Alipore on the allegation of cruelty. The nature of cruelty as alleged against the wife respondent may shortly be stated like this : (i) That she made wild allegation against the petitioner as the murderer of his brother Late Bimal kumar Tulshan. (ii) That she refused to have sexual intercourse with the petitioner without applying contraceptives, or in other words, he alleged that he had no sexual satisfaction with his wife. (iii) That she was a woman of nagging habits. These are some of the allegations which were made by the petitioner against the wife. On the said allegation the petition for judicial separation was filed in the Alipore Court. The wife entered appearance and filed her written statement denying all the allegations of cruelty and also desertion leveled against her. Counter allegation was made by the wife against the husband that he was cruel in his behavior with her which had a adverse effect on her health. During the pendency of the said petition for judicial separation the wife respondent prayed for alimony pendent lite which was fixed by the Additional district Judge at a sum of Rs. 350/-, which was, however, raised to the sum of Rs. 500/- on appeal being preferred by the wife. The court ultimately. passed an exparte decree for judicial separation on the 22nd February, 1967. As there was no reconciliation or resumption of co-habitation between the parties, a decree for divorce was passed under section 13 of the Hindu marriage Act. 3. AFTER the said first decree was passed the respondent wife filed an application before the 5th Court, Add dist. passed an exparte decree for judicial separation on the 22nd February, 1967. As there was no reconciliation or resumption of co-habitation between the parties, a decree for divorce was passed under section 13 of the Hindu marriage Act. 3. AFTER the said first decree was passed the respondent wife filed an application before the 5th Court, Add dist. Judge, Alipore, under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and prayed for the grant of permanent alimony at a sum of Rs. 1,500/ -. She alleged therein that she had no independent income of her own and that she was living on the mercy of her near relatives. Her allegation further was that the petitioner was a man of substance and was carrying on business worth more than 50 lacs of rupees yielding monthly income between Rs. 15,000. 00 to Rs. 20,000. 00 -. The learned Additional District Judge considering the materials on record, by his order dated 22nd December, 1971 directed the petitioner to pay an alimony at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month to the wife for her maintenance, so long she remains unmarried. Against the said order and judgment the petitioner preferred an appeal in this court which was heard by Sinha, J. and myself. Considering the materials on record and after hearing the contentions of both the parties this Court reduced the alimony from Rs. 500/- per month to Rs. 400/- per month. Against the said order the petitioner intends to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court and as such this application for leave under Article 133 of the Constitution of India has been filed. 4. MR. Ghosh, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case there is a substantial question of law of general importance. According to him, this court while granting alimony, overlooked to consider the provision of section 23 which debars a person to take advantage of his or her wrong. 4. MR. Ghosh, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case there is a substantial question of law of general importance. According to him, this court while granting alimony, overlooked to consider the provision of section 23 which debars a person to take advantage of his or her wrong. Our attention was drawn to the provisions of section 23 of the said section is quoted here which is as follows : - "section 23 (1) : in any proceeding under this Act, whether defended or not, if the court is satisfied that- (a) any of the grounds for granting relief exists and the petitioner is not in any way taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief and (b) where the ground of the petition is the ground specified in clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 10, or in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 13, the petitioner has not in any manner been accessory to or connived at or condoned the act or acts complained of, or where the ground of the petition is cruelty the petitioner has not in any manner condoned the cruelty, and (c) the petition is not presented or prosecuted in collusion with the respondent, and (d) there has not been any unnecessary or improper delay in instituting the proceeding, and (e) there is no other legal ground why relief should not be granted, then and in such a case, but not otherwise, the court shall decree such relief accordingly. " According to the learned counsel for the petitioner section 25 of the hindu Marriage Act is being controlled by section 23 of the said Act. Mr. Dutt, learned Advocate for the respondent seriously disputed the said contention, made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to mr. Dutt, Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned counsel who appeared for the petitioner to argue this matter before this court while the question of alimony was considered, drew the attention of the court to the words "conduct of the parties", which appear in section 25. In that connection Mr. Roy Chowdhury submitted that as the wife respondent refused to submit to the petitioner husband and withdrew herself completely to live as husband and wife, the wife under no circumstance should be granted any alimony. In that connection mr. In that connection Mr. Roy Chowdhury submitted that as the wife respondent refused to submit to the petitioner husband and withdrew herself completely to live as husband and wife, the wife under no circumstance should be granted any alimony. In that connection mr. Roy Chowdhury referred to the conduct of the respondent which resulted in the divorce of the wife by the petitioner. Mr. Dutt further submits that this being a question of fact the court should not grant any leave to the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Article 133 of the Constitution of India. 5. MR. Ghosh, learned Counsel, however, disputed the said proposition. According to him, as this court did not consider the provisions of section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) there has been a failure of justice and that itself is a sufficient ground for grant of such leave. We cannot subscribe to that contention of Mr. Ghosh. We have already quoted the relevant portions of section 23 of the Act. The said section cannot be said to control section 25 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of section 23 in effect lays down that under certain circumstances and not otherwise the court should decree such relief as prayed for by the petitioner. The words "the court shall decree such relief" are very significant. That relates to a decree which can be passed in any proceeding under the Act. The word decree' appears in the case of restitution of conjugal rights as provided in section 9, judicial separation as provided in section 10, declaration of nullity of marriage as contemplated in section 11, annulment of voidable marriage as appears in section 12 and in the case of divorce as appears in section 13 of the act. Necessarily, therefore, section 23 regulates the action as is contemplated in the above mentioned sections. We are of the view, therefore, that this section has got no reference to section 25 of the act which in itself is a self-contained one. 6. IN this view of the matter we are not satisfied that any substantial question of law of general importance is involved in this case. This Court while considering the question of the amount of alimony to be paid by the petitioner to the wife also looked to the conduct of the wife. 6. IN this view of the matter we are not satisfied that any substantial question of law of general importance is involved in this case. This Court while considering the question of the amount of alimony to be paid by the petitioner to the wife also looked to the conduct of the wife. This court was satisfied on the facts of the case that such a conduct as alleged against her by the husband even if gone into could not disentitle her to get permanent alimony. That being a question of fact it has been concluded by the said finding of this court. Next point urged by the petitioner is that the court has wrongly held that the party applying for the alimony must be presumed to be innocent, that under the law, such a presumption is not permitted to be made. 7. THIS point was raised and elaborately dealt with in the judgment. Similar question was raised and decided by other High Court in the line of our decision. It does not affect any provision of law, at best it is part of the procedure indicating how the evidence is to be analysed. As such this point also fails. No other point has been raised on behalf of the petitioner. 8. FOR the reasons stated the case involves no substantial question of law of general importance, as such we refuse the prayer of the petitioner for granting leave to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court. In the result, the application for leave to prefer an appeal to the supreme Court is refused with costs hearing fee assessed at ten Gold mohurs. 9. LET the certified copy of the judgment and decree be returned to the filing lawyer. 10. MR. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner, prays for stay of the operation of the order for a week so that appropriate steps may be taken to file the appeal. It may, however, be mentioned that this lady has not been paid any alimoney uptil now. Huge sums have been accumulated. In the circumstances such a prayer cannot be considered. Accordingly, the said prayer is refused. We indicated our intention to grant such a prayer provided the petitioner deposite Rs. 5,000/- at least in the court below. But the petitioner declined to deposit such an amount.