JUDGMENT V.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short), is directed against the order dated 4.9.1995 in M.J.C. No. 37/93 by Fourth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, granting permanent alimony of Rs. 2,000/- per month besides an amount of Rs. 60,000/- to the respondent/wife. 2. Undisputably, the parties were married at Jabalpur. The appellant/ husband filed an application for divorce under Section 13 of the 'Act' registered as C.S. No. 148-A/91. The suit was decided in favour of the appellant/husband and a decree for divorce was granted on 21.12.1993. 3. The respondent/wife thereafter filed the present petition on 24.12.1993 under Section 25 of the 'Act', for grant of permanent alimony and claimed a sum of Rs. 2 lacs. The averments in the petition were that though she has enrolled as an Advocate and has started working as a trainee Junior Lawyer in the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur, yet she has no independent income from the profession. She has further averred that she requires reasonable amount for accommodation, for office furniture, library, etc. It was also averred that she is in helpless condition and requires support and maintenance for herself. It was averred that the appellant/ husband is an employee of Punjab National Bank. Therefore, prayer was made that permanent alimony in the sum of Rs. 2 lacs be granted. 4. The application was resisted by the appellant/husband. It was denied by him that the plaintiff /wife was not earning anything from legal profession, and it was averred that the respondent/wife appeared as Counsel in several cases, as detailed in the reply filed by the appellant/husband. It has also been averred that the respondent/ wife was living in a newly constructed flat at Gol Bazar, Jabalpur, gifted to her, by her father. It was denied that she requires any sum for establishing herself in the legal profession. The appellant/husband admitted that he was serving in the Punjab National Bank, but it was further averred that his wife-the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance, as she has cheated him. It was also averred that the respondent/wife had prayed for interim maintenance during the pendency of his suit for divorce which prayer was rejected. A civil revision was preferred by the respondent/wife in the High Court, which was also dismissed on 7.12.1992. It was also averred that the respondent/wife had prayed for interim maintenance during the pendency of his suit for divorce which prayer was rejected. A civil revision was preferred by the respondent/wife in the High Court, which was also dismissed on 7.12.1992. It was, therefore, prayed that the application of the respondent/wife for permanent alimony may be dismissed. 5. The learned Trial Court framed issues as to whether the respondent/wife had any independent source of income and whether she was entitled to a sum of Rs. 2 lacs as permanent alimony from appellant/husband. It was held by the learned Trial Court that the respondent/wife had no independent source of income, and that she is entitled to permanent alimony @ Rs. 2,000/- per month as also an amount of Rs. 60,000/- relating to a period of two and half years. A decree was granted accordingly. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant/husband has urged that the respondent/wife is a practising Lawyer for the last about ten years and is junior to an eminent Lawyer on the criminal side. It has been submitted that she has appeared in several cases, and therefore, a presumption would be drawn that she has sufficient income from the profession. It was further urged that the respondent/ wife was also having a telephone in her name, which gives rise to an inference that she must be having some substantial income. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has cited Ramlal v. Smt. Surinder Kaur, I (1996) DMC 191 (DB); and S. Rashtni Pradip Kumar Jain v. Pradeep Kumar, II (1994) DMC 25, to support his contention that as the respondent is having income of her own, she is not entitled to any permanent alimony. 8. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for appellant that the conduct of the respondent/wife should be taken into consideration for grant of permanent alimony. It has been submitted that the conduct of the respondent/wife was that she did not permit the marriage to be consummated. It has further been submitted that the appellant/husband has remarried after obtaining divorce from the respondent and is under an obligation to support his parents besides his second wife. It has been submitted that the conduct of the respondent/wife was that she did not permit the marriage to be consummated. It has further been submitted that the appellant/husband has remarried after obtaining divorce from the respondent and is under an obligation to support his parents besides his second wife. It has also been urged by the learned Counsel for appellant mat the respondent/wife during the pendency of the divorce proceedings had filed an application for grant of maintenance 'pendente lite' under Section 24 of the 'Act' which was dismissed by the Trial Court and the revision against the said order was also dismissed. Hence, petition for permanent alimony, filed by respondent/wife also deserves to be dismissed. It has, therefore, been urged that the application under Section 25 of lite 'Act' could not have been allowed and the impugned order granting permanent alimony to the respondent was not justified. 9. As against the above contentions, the learned Counsel for the respondent/ wife has supported the impugned judgment. It has been submitted that though the appellant has enrolled herself as an Advocate, but she has no independent income. Since she has not been shown to have any independent source of livelihood, she was entitled to maintenance, which has rightly been granted in her favour after considering the relative financial status of the parties. 10. It may be mentioned here that the respondent/wife had filed a cross-objection for enhancement of amount of permanent alimony granted by the Trial Court. However, the said cross-objection has not been pressed by him during arguments and it has been submitted that the respondent would be taking appropriate action in the Trial Court for enhancement of the said amount under Section 25(2) of the 'Act'. Hence, the cross-objection and everments therein, need no consideration. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant/husband raised a preliminary objection that the present application under Section 25 of the 'Act' is not maintainable in view of the fact that, the application under Section 24 of the 'Act' for grant of maintenance pendente lite was dismissed by the Trial Court. 12. Therefore, it has first to be considered as to whether the application under Section 25 of the 'Act' filed by the respondent/wife is maintainable? 13. It may be noted that Section 24 of the 'Act' provides for maintenance 'pendente lite' and expenses of proceedings. 12. Therefore, it has first to be considered as to whether the application under Section 25 of the 'Act' filed by the respondent/wife is maintainable? 13. It may be noted that Section 24 of the 'Act' provides for maintenance 'pendente lite' and expenses of proceedings. It has been provided therein that in any proceeding under the 'Act' if it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceedings, it may on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay the petitioner the expenses of proceedings and also such monthly sum during the proceedings, which may seem to the Court to be reasonable. Therefore, the order under Section 24 of the 'Act' takes care for the maintenance of either of the parties involved in the matrimonial litigation as also the litigation expenses during the pendency of the proceedings. But the above provision is hot applicable after the matrimonial proceedings are terminated and such an order cannot enure after the above proceedings have ended. 14. Section 25 of the 'Act' deals with the grant of permanent alimony and maintenance. It provides that the Court exercising juridiction under the 'Act' at the time of passing any decree or at any subsequent time thereto, on application made to it by the husband or the wife order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for his or her maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum, as it may seem reasonable. It has been laid down in the said section that the Court may consider the respondent's own income and other property if any, the. Income and other property of the applicant, the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case while granting permanent alimony. 15. It would, therefore, be clear that under Section 24 of the 'Act' maintenance 'pendente lite' is to, be granted while under Section 25 of the 'Act', provision has been made for grant of permanent alimony for a period after the passing of the decree. The above provisions are, therefore, distinct and independent of each other. 16. 15. It would, therefore, be clear that under Section 24 of the 'Act' maintenance 'pendente lite' is to, be granted while under Section 25 of the 'Act', provision has been made for grant of permanent alimony for a period after the passing of the decree. The above provisions are, therefore, distinct and independent of each other. 16. Therefore, even if the application under Section 24 of the 'Act' for grant of maintenance 'pendente lite' 'filed by the respondent was disallowed; yet the same could not operate as a bar to the grant of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the 'Act' as has been urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant Learned Counsel for the appellant in the above regard relied upon the judgment of Susheela v. R. Jagannadham, AIR 1964 Andhra Pradesh 247. In that case the wife had filed an application under Section 25 of the 'Act' during the pendency of the suit filed by her for dissolution of marriage. The application was dismissed. Subsequently the wife again filed an application for grant of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the 'Act. It was held that the said application was not maintainable and could not be filed, without showing that there was any change in circumstances. 17. However, in the instant case, as noticed earlier, an application under Section 24 of the 'Act was filed during the pendency of the suit. The said application was dismissed. After the suit for divorce was decided, the present application under Section 25 of the 'Act for permanent alimony was filed for the first time. Hence, the dismissal of the earlier application under Section 24 of the 'Act certainly would not affect the maintainability of the present application under Section 25 of the 'Act. Therefore, the pronouncement in Susheela's case (supra), does not lend support to preliminary objection as above raised by the learned Counsel, for the appellant. Hence, the objection as above, cannot be accepted. 18. Coming to the merits of the matter it has to be considered whether in the circumstances of the case, impugned order granting permanent alimony to the respondent/wife was justified? 19. It is an admitted position of the case that the respondent/wife has enrolled herself as an Advocate in the year 1990. Hence, the objection as above, cannot be accepted. 18. Coming to the merits of the matter it has to be considered whether in the circumstances of the case, impugned order granting permanent alimony to the respondent/wife was justified? 19. It is an admitted position of the case that the respondent/wife has enrolled herself as an Advocate in the year 1990. However, the petitioner/respondent Manju Khatri (AW 1) has stated on oath that she has no income and no means of subsistence; and that she does not own any property. She has further stated that the appellant is an employee in the Punjab National Bank and earns about Rs. 10,000/- per month. She has stated that he also takes up part time job in the evening from which he earns about Rs. 8,000/- to 10,000/- per month. Though the respondent Manju Khatri (AW 1) has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but nothing could be brought out to show that she has her own independent income. 20. The respondent has also examined her mother Sudesh Khatri (AW 3) who has stated that her daughter, the respondent, resides with her and she bears the expenses of respondent. 21. As against the above, the appellant/husband Ajay Ahuja (NAW 1) has examined himself. He states that the respondent earns about Rs. 7,000/- to 8,000/- per month. However, he has not substantiated his statement by any reliable independent evidence. In fact Ajay Ahuja (NAW 1) during his cross-examination in para 30 of his statement has admitted that he cannot substantiate his assertion that the respondent Manju Khatri earns Rs. 7,000/- to 8,000/- per month from legal profession. He states that some Advocate had told him about the income as above of the respondent/wife. However, he does not even remember the name of the Advocate. The above vague statement, therefore, cannot be relied upon and would not go to show that the respondent is having independent income from legal profession. 22. The appellant has also examined Anil Bhutda (NAW 2), who states that he had gone to consult the respondent on some legal matter and had paid her fee of Rs; 500/-. However, he has admitted that he has not produced any document regarding the matter on which he consulted Manju Khatri-the respondent. His statement, therefore does not inspire confidence. 22. The appellant has also examined Anil Bhutda (NAW 2), who states that he had gone to consult the respondent on some legal matter and had paid her fee of Rs; 500/-. However, he has admitted that he has not produced any document regarding the matter on which he consulted Manju Khatri-the respondent. His statement, therefore does not inspire confidence. Ram Prakash Ahuja (NAW 3), the father of the appellant has stated that the respondent Manju Ahuja works with a Senior Counsel, and he was informed that she was being paid one-fourth of the fee which was realised by the Senior Counsel. However, he has admitted in his cross-examination, that no fee was paid in his presence to Manju Ahuja. Therefore, his statement appears to be merely a guess work and cannot be relied upon. 23. In view of the above, the stattement of Manju Khatri (AW 1) supported by the statement of her mother Smt. Sudesh Khatri (AW 3) would indicate that the respondent had no independent income of her own. The said evidence has not been properly contradicted by the evidence led by the appellant. The appellant has failed to prove by cogent and reliable evidence that the respondent has any independent source of income. It is undisputed that the appellant Ajay Ahuja is an employee of Punjab National Bank. Onkar Prasad Nema (AW 2) was examined on behalf of the respondent who had brought the pay slips Ex. P1/A and Ex. P2/A which would indicate that in April, 1994 the appellant was earning more than Rs. 6,000/-. Thereafter, his pay stood revised in May, 1995, and the revision was made applicable since November, 1992. It is also clear that thereafter again there has been a further upward revision in the pay scale of the Bank employees. In view of the above, it is clear that the appellant had substantial income which was assessed around Rs. 8,000/- to 10,000/- by the learned Trial Court. 24. Accordingly, since it has not been established that the respondent has independent income; while the appellant is earning about Rs. 10,000/- or more, grant of permanent alimony @ Rs. 2,000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive or unjust. In view of above, the proposition laid down in Ramlal's case (supra), does not in any way help the plaintiff's case. 25. 10,000/- or more, grant of permanent alimony @ Rs. 2,000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive or unjust. In view of above, the proposition laid down in Ramlal's case (supra), does not in any way help the plaintiff's case. 25. In the circumstances of the case, as noticed above, the grant of permanent alimony by the impugned judgment, does not call for any interference. This appeal has, therefore, no merit and is accordingly dismissed. The cross-objection filed by the respondent having not been pressed, is also dismissed.