SABHAKIT J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the husband is directed against the judgment and order dt. 28-8-1981 passed by the Principal city Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, in M. C. No. 38 of 1980 on his file, awarding Rs. 400 per month to the wife from the date of the decre? of divorce as Alimony from the husband. ( 2 ) THERE has been dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce between the parties in this proceeding on 2-8-1979. and thereafter the wife instituted the present petition for alimony against her husband claiming Rs. 600 per month towards alimony. She averred that the husband was getting Rs. 3,000 by way of rent per month and that the amount claimed by her is necessary for her maintenance in these hard days. The husband resisted the petition. According to him, he was not getting that much of rent from buildings. He was living with his mother and he shared the rental income with his mother, besides, his wife was having a car which she was using as a taxi, she was also earning by way of giving tution and therefore he submitted that her petition for alimony should be dismissed. He also raised objection in regard to her conduct in not obtaining restitution of conjugal rights. ( 3 ) DURING hearing, the wife examined herself and so also the husband. The trial Court appreciating the evidence on record held that the evidence on record proved that the husband was getting Rs. 2,800 rental per month and in that view taking into consideration all the aspects, awarded rs. 400 per month towards alimony. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the husband has instituted the above appeal before this Court. ( 4 ) THE learned advocate appearing for the appellant strenuously urged before us that having regard to the conduct of the petitioner-wife as also her capacity for earning and the fact that she was having a car which was used as a taxi and also taking into consideration the fact that she was giving tution to students, she could at best be awarded bare maintenance amounting to not more than Rs. 225 per month. As againt that, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent- wife argued supporting the judgment and order of the Principal City Civil judge. 225 per month. As againt that, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent- wife argued supporting the judgment and order of the Principal City Civil judge. The Sole point therefore that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the alimony awarded at Rs. 400 per month by the trial court is just and proper. ( 5 ) THE learned Civil Judge in the course of his lengthy order has discussed about the income of the husband as well as of the wife. Relying on exhibit P2 partition deed between the husband and his mother, he has come to the conclusion that the building which has been allotted to the share of the husband has been let out to Indian overseas Bank, which fetches monthly rental of Rs. 2,000. The upstairs of the building was let out to one veigas for Rs. 800 per month. The learned Civil Judge after discussing the evidence on record has held that the upstairs is let out to Rs. 800 per month and thus he has fixed the earning of the husband at Rs. 2,800 per month disbelieving the version of the wife that the garage is also let out for Rs. 200 per month, ( 6 ) ADVERTING to the income of the wife, the learned Civil Judge has disbelieved the version of the husband that she is having a car which was used as a taxi and that she is earning by way of tution. It is in this view that the learned Civil Judge has fixed the alimony at Rs. 400 per month. ( 7 ) SO far as the rental from the bank is concerned, it is admitted even by the husband that he receives Rs. 2,000 per month. He disputed the ren: tal from veigas with regard to the upstairs of the building. The evidence placed on record, in addition to the evidence of the wife herself, is the Telephone directory In which the name of veigas is shown as owning a phone in the upstairs. Wife has further averred that her husband used to receive rents from Veigas through cheque which he credited In Indian Overseas Bank. The learned Civil Judge has drawn adverse inference against the husband because he neither produced the pass book nor the evidence from the bank to show that such cheques were not issued. Wife has further averred that her husband used to receive rents from Veigas through cheque which he credited In Indian Overseas Bank. The learned Civil Judge has drawn adverse inference against the husband because he neither produced the pass book nor the evidence from the bank to show that such cheques were not issued. In these circumstances, we have no reason to differ from the finding of the learned Civil Judge that the husband let out upstairs also for rs. 800 rent per month. Together, therefore, the income of the husband was Rs. 2,800 per month. It is no doubt true that he has to pay interest on the balance amount of loan taken for extension of the building. Having regard to all these, taking into consideration the fact that the husband has only to feed himself and his newly married wife rs. 400 awarded as alimony to the present respondent is really the bare minimum. Considering the income of the husband and the two couls whom he has to feed, the alimony should have been really more in these hard days of inflation. It is a matter of common knowledge that Rs. 400 would afford only a bare subsistence living and certainly not a luxurious life and not even to such living to which the present appellant is accustomed, having regard her status. ( 8 ) ADVERTING to the income of the wife as such, the husband, though, he made attempts in his evidence to show that she is earning by way of tution, he could not say how much she was earning. There is no independent evidence to prove that she is giving tution and much less as to what she is getting by way of tution fees. He has no doubt stated that she is using the car as a taxi But the learned Civil judge has rightly pointed out that there is no evidence to prove it. It is to make allegations especially when the feelings are strained and the allegations without anything more would be of no avail. That is what has happened in this case also. There is no evidence worth the name to hold that the wife is earning by way of tution by using the car as a taxi. It is to make allegations especially when the feelings are strained and the allegations without anything more would be of no avail. That is what has happened in this case also. There is no evidence worth the name to hold that the wife is earning by way of tution by using the car as a taxi. ( 9 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the'appellant strenuously urged before us that the wife had purchased the car out of the alimony paid to her pendente lite. She has stated in her deposition that she has utilised part of the amount for purchasing the car and the rest was paid by her parents. Any amount paid by close relatives exgratia cannot be considered as a source of income. It may be that she might have purchased the car for attending the College and she was using the car to go to the College. She has deposed that she did not engage a driver and she herself was driving the car. If an authority is needed for the above proposition, it is to be found in case of Malkan Rani v. Krishan Kumar (AIR 1961 Punjab 42 ). ( 10 ) S. 25 of the Hindu Marriage act speaking about permanent alimony and maintenance, states inter alia that the conduct of the party concerned should also be taken into consideration. The learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously urged before us that the wife did not satisfy the decree for restitution of ' conjugal rights and on the other hand she made that a ground for a decree, for divorce. Hence he submitted that this conduct on her part should be taken into consideration to restrict the alimony to the bare minimum ( 11 ) IT may be noted in this context that the Supreme Court of India in Dharmendra Kumar v. Usha Kumar (AIR 1977 S. C. 2218) has ruled that the non-compliance with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights even if it be true did not amount to misconduct, grave enough to disentitle the wife to the relief she asked for, namely divorce. A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Ram Piari v. Piara Lal (AIR 1979 Punjab and Haryana 341) has ruled that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the petitioner is not a bar to her to claim permanent alimony and maintenance. A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Ram Piari v. Piara Lal (AIR 1979 Punjab and Haryana 341) has ruled that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the petitioner is not a bar to her to claim permanent alimony and maintenance. Similarly, in Patel Dharamshi Premji v. Bai Sakar Kanji ( AIR 1968 Guj. 150 ) a Division Bench of Gujarat High court has held that under S. 25 permanent alimony can be granted even to an erring spouse and the mere fact that the wife did not comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights and that was the cause for passing of a decree against her, cannot by itself disentitle her to claim permanent alimony under the section. In Sachindra Nath Biswas v. Smt. Bonamola Biswas ( AIR 1960 Cal. 575 ) it is laid down that in the exercise of judicial discretion expressly vested in courts of law under S. 25 (1) of the hindu Marriage, Act, a Judge should, unless there be very special grounds, leave a wife, divorced on the ground of proved unchastity or adultery, to the resources of her immorality and deny her the lawful means of support, by passing a decree for maintenance in her favour. ( 12 ) IT is thus clear that unless it is a case where the wife is guilty of un- chastity or adultery, she cannot be deprived of alimony and maintenance under S, 25 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955. ( 13 ) IT may also be mentioned that in the present case both husband and wife were eager to have a decree of divorce and the material on record shows that the husband went to the extent of filing IAS. iii and VI urging on the Court to dispose of the matter granting divorce by consent as early as possible so that he might marry again and in fact he married the second wife on 30-4-1979 itself. That being so, thera is no substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that on the facts and circumstances of this case, the wife should be granted the bare minimum as maintenance. ( 14 ) AS stated above, what is granted by the Court is a modest sum of Rs. 400 per month by way of alimony. ( 14 ) AS stated above, what is granted by the Court is a modest sum of Rs. 400 per month by way of alimony. That being so, we have no reason to interfere with such an order of maintenance passed by the trial Court and in our considered view, this appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and we dismiss the same. ( 15 ) IT was submitted at the Bar that the wife got herself remarried on 18-10-1983 and thereafter obviously there is no question of payment of alimony any further. It was further submitted before us that alimony till that day was already paid. In the eircums", tances, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the cross objections are dismissed. --- *** --- .