JUDGMENT Both these appeal, preferred under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are directed against the judgment and order dated November 16, 2006, passed by the District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Suit No. 01 of 2006, whereby the petition filed by the husband Girish Dangwal for declaration of marriage between the parties as void and in alternative for divorce, is disposed of with the direction that instead of decree of dissolution of marriage, a decree of judicial separation is passed. (There is no family court established so far in the District of Tehri Garhwal). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Girish Dangwal got married to respondent Sushma Dangwal on 04.02.2005, according to Hindu rites and rituals, at New Daang, Sri Nagar, Pauri Garhwal. After marriage, petitioner took the respondent to his house in Tehri Garhwal, where the two lived together for a short time. There is no issue (living) born out of the wedlock. It is alleged by the petitioner (husband) in the petition filed before the trial court under Section 12 read with Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, that the respondent Sushma Dangwal's behaviour in her in-laws house was abnormal. It is further alleged that the respondent had underwent some medical treatment of mental disease which was not disclosed to the petitioner, and as such, fraud was played with him. It is further pleaded that the respondent got her pregnancy terminated against the wishes of the petitioner. At present, respondent is living in her parental house. The petition is moved within one year of marriage after seeking leave of the court under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 4. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent (wife) the marriage between the parties is admitted. It is also admitted that the respondent got pregnancy terminated. However, rest of the allegations in the petition are denied. It is pleaded that respondent is hail and hearty and suffers from no ailment. It is further stated that she is qualified and obtained degree of B.Ed. 5. The trial court after perusing the pleadings of the parties, framed following issues: i) Whether, the marriage between the parties is void and null, as alleged in the petition? It is pleaded that respondent is hail and hearty and suffers from no ailment. It is further stated that she is qualified and obtained degree of B.Ed. 5. The trial court after perusing the pleadings of the parties, framed following issues: i) Whether, the marriage between the parties is void and null, as alleged in the petition? In the alternative Whether, the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce on the grounds taken in the petition? ii) Whether, the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, as alleged by respondent in Para 15 of her written statement, if so, its effect? iii) To what relief, if any, is the petitioner entitled? 6. The parties adduced their evidence before the trial court as petitioner got himself examined as P.W. 1 Girish Dangwal, and the respondent got herself examined as D.W. 1 Sushma Dangwal. They also filed documentary evidence. After hearing the parties, the trial court held that since part of cause of action has arisen in District Tehri Garhwal, as such, said court has the jurisdiction to entertain the petition. On issue No. 1, the trial court gave a finding that though there was abnormal behaviour on the part of wife but she was not suffering from any insanity. Also, the trial court found that the respondent got the pregnancy terminated against the wishes of her husband, and as such, treated the petitioner with cruelty. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court took the view that it is a fit case for exercising jurisdiction under Section 13-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and instead of decree of divorce granted decree of judicial separation. Dissatisfied by the decree passed by the trial court vide its impugned order dated 16.11.2006, in Suit No. 01 of 2006, both the parties have filed these appeals, which are taken up together and are being disposed of. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner Girish Dangwal (husband) got married to respondent Sushma Dangwal (wife) on 04.02.2005 in New Daang, Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal. It is also not disputed between the parties that there is no issue (living) born out of the wedlock. However, it is not denied between the parties that there had been a pregnancy, but the same was got terminated. Petitioner's case is that the pregnancy was got terminated by the wife without the consent of her husband. It is also not disputed between the parties that there is no issue (living) born out of the wedlock. However, it is not denied between the parties that there had been a pregnancy, but the same was got terminated. Petitioner's case is that the pregnancy was got terminated by the wife without the consent of her husband. On the other hand, the wife has stated that the pregnancy was got terminated with the consent of the husband. 5 8. Both the parties were directed to appear in person before this Court, twice. On the earlier occasion, the efforts of reconciliation were made, but failed. When they were directed to appear in person again, the husband told the Court that in no circumstances he could live with the respondent Sushma Dangwal. On the other hand, Sushma Dangwal (wife) told the Court that she is ready and willing to live with the petitioner. However, she further told the Court that in case the decree of divorce is granted, she must be paid a reasonable sum as permanent alimony to her, so that she may live without financial difficulties. In the Court, the husband admitted that he is a teacher. The wife told that she is jobless. 9. Perusal of the lower court record shows that the petitioner has not adduced any evidence which proves that the respondent was suffering from any kind of insanity on the basis of which the marriage can be declared void under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Sub clause (ii) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act requires that for a valid marriage between the Hindus, at the time of marriage neither party should be incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity. Though, the petitioner has been above to prove some abnormal behaviour on the part of his wife, but mere forgetfulness cannot be said to be insanity or unsoundness of mind. Though, the petitioner has been above to prove some abnormal behaviour on the part of his wife, but mere forgetfulness cannot be said to be insanity or unsoundness of mind. This Court finds no error of law committed by the trial court in holding that the petitioner does not suffer from any insanity on the basis of which the marriage can be declared void or null. 10. As far as the ground of cruelty is concerned, from the evidence on record, it is established that the wife got pregnancy terminated without the consent of her husband. Said conduct on the part of the wife does amount cruelty against her husband. As such, the finding to that effect is also not erroneous in law. 11. Now, the question before this Court is, whether, it is a fit case to exercise powers under Section 13-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to grant decree of judicial separation instead of decree of divorce, or not? On examination of the parties and after perusal of the evidence on record, this Court finds that the parties to matrimony could not live together for more than a month after they got married in February 2005. They are living separately till date. None of the parties are going to each others house. Wife is living in her parental house. It is also told by the parties present in person before this Court that there has been no cohabitation after the decree of judicial separation was passed by the trial court. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose is going to be served by maintaining decree of judicial separation, and denying decree of divorce. As such, it would be just and proper to grant the decree of divorce, on the petition of the husband, but simultaneously, this Court is conscious of the fact that the wife is a jobless young lady and she needs to be provided a reasonable amount of lump sum alimony for her maintenance. The husband Girish Dangwal is a teacher, as told by him to this Court, when he was present in person. Considering the status of the parties and their economic condition no amount less than Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lacs only) can be said to be a reasonable amount as permanent alimony, in the present case. The husband Girish Dangwal is a teacher, as told by him to this Court, when he was present in person. Considering the status of the parties and their economic condition no amount less than Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lacs only) can be said to be a reasonable amount as permanent alimony, in the present case. Also, at the time when the parties were present in this Court in person, the wife told that the items including jewellary given to her at the time of her marriage are still lying in her in-laws house, which she is entitled to get back. 12. For the reasons as discussed above, both these appeals are disposed of as under: Appeal No. 103 of 2006, filed by the wife, is dismissed maintaining the findings recorded by the trial court on issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Appeal No. 104 of 2006, filed by the husband, is allowed and decree of judicial separation in place of decree of divorce, is set aside. The petition for divorce is allowed, on following terms: (1) The decree of divorce would be effective only if the petitioner (husband) pays a lump sum amount of permanent alimony amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lacs only) to the respondent Sushma Dangwal, within a period of three months from today, failing which the petition for divorce would stand dismissed. (2) The respondent would be entitled to get back all the articles, including jewellery, given to her at the time of her marriage, which are lying in the house of the petitioner (husband). Costs easy.