Judgment: S.K. Gangele, J.;- 1. This first appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant against the judgment and decree dated 16th August, 2012 passed by the Trial Court in Case No. 7A/12 HMA granting a decree of divorce. The respondent/plaintiff filed the present suit for divorce. He pleaded that the marriage between him and the appellant/defendant was solemnised on 23/4/2000 at Rai Bareilly. After the marriage, the defendant had lived with the plaintiff upto 31/12/2002. At that time, the defendant was pregnant and she had gone to Morena with one Sunil Kumar Shrivastava for some check up. Thereafter, she had given semen analysis report to the plaintiff and when she was asked why she had gone to Morena with Sunil Kumar Shrivastava, she left the house and threatened that she would teach a lesson to the plaintiff. A notice was sent to the defendant on 20/3/2010. It was mentioned in the notice that the defendant shall live with the plaintiff and perform the obligations as wife. However, the notice was sent back without any reply. The defendant lodged a report for offence punishable under section 498A IPC against the family members of the plaintiff on the basis of which Criminal Case No. 561/04 is pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalon at Urai. The plaintiff further levelled allegations that the defendant had illegal relationship with Sunil Kumar Shrivastava and she had been living with him and did not return to the house of the plaintiff. 2. Defendant in her written statement denied the pleadings of the plaint. She specifically denied that she had any relationship with Sunil Kumar Shrivastava or she had gone with him on 12/6/2001. She further pleaded that on 6/7/2003 the plaintiff had made demand of dowry from her and he had beaten her and also drove her out of the house. She further pleaded that she had been living with her mother and brother at Urai. She further denied that she had received any notice from the plaintiff and she does not want to live with him. She pleaded that the plaintiff wants to remarry and he had made a demand of dowry from the defendant, hence, it is not possible to live with the plaintiff. Earlier also, the plaintiff filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights which was dismissed on account of non-prosecution of the suit. 3. She pleaded that the plaintiff wants to remarry and he had made a demand of dowry from the defendant, hence, it is not possible to live with the plaintiff. Earlier also, the plaintiff filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights which was dismissed on account of non-prosecution of the suit. 3. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence, documentary and oral, held that the defendant had levelled allegations without any basis against the plaintiff in regard to demand of dowry, and without any basis, the defendant had been living separately from the plaintiff for the last eight years, hence, she had practiced cruelty with the plaintiff and granted decree of divorce. 4. The plaintiff deposed the same facts which have been pleaded by him in the plaint. In his affidavit filed before the Trial Court, he specifically pleaded that the defendant is not willing to live with him as his wife, hence, he filed a suit for divorce. She had levelled illegal allegations in regard to demand of dowry and lodged a report in this regard at the Police Station, on the basis of which a criminal case has been registered against the plaintiff. 5. Ramprakash Shakya (PW 2) in his evidence deposed that the defendant had been living with another person Sunil Shrivastava and she had illegal relationship with Sunil Shrivastava and she was pregnant at the time of marriage. Same facts have been stated by another witness Suresh Shrivastava (PW 3). 6. Defendant in her evidence deposed that on 6/7/2003 the plaintiff and his younger brother Mukesh, father Ramsingh and mother had made a demand of dowry of Rupees 10,000/- and a motorcycle from her. They had beaten her and also abused her and thereafter she was forced to leave the house. A private complaint was also registered in this regard by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Urai for commission of the offence punishable under section 498A IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. She further deposed that her father was died earlier and there is only mother to look after her because her brother is mentally ill. Plaintiff is a photographer and he has a studio at Jora and his income is Rupees 20,000/- per month. In cross-examination, she admitted the fact that she has been living in House No. 67 near Gautam Buddha School, Urai for the last nine years. Plaintiff is a photographer and he has a studio at Jora and his income is Rupees 20,000/- per month. In cross-examination, she admitted the fact that she has been living in House No. 67 near Gautam Buddha School, Urai for the last nine years. She further deposed that family members of the plaintiff had made a demand of dowry, hence, she did not want to go the house of the plaintiff. She also deposed that she has knowledge that the plaintiff has illegal relationship with one lady. She also denied the fact that she was pregnant at the time of marriage. 7. Ex. D/1 is a copy of the plaint filed by the plaintiff under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Ex. D/2 is a copy of the application for setting aside ex parte order passed under section 125 Cr.P.C. Ex. D/3 is a copy of the ex parte order passed under section 125 Cr.P.C. Ex. D/4 is a copy of the order by which a case under section 498A IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been registered against the plaintiff. Ex. D/5 is a copy of the suit filed for restitution of conjugal rights and Ex. D/6 is a copy of the order passed by the Court under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 8. The plaintiff also filed four documents, viz. Ex. P/1 a report of Nursing Home; Ex. P/2 notice returned back unserved; Ex. P/3 copy of the notice and Ex. P/4 copy of Semen Analysis report. 9. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the defendant lodged a private complaint against the plaintiff on the basis of which a criminal case under section 498A IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been registered against the plaintiff and his family members. In the aforesaid complaint, allegations have been levelled that the plaintiff and his family members had made a demand of dowry and they had also beaten the defendant. However, no report was lodged at the Police Station by the defendant in this regard at that time. It is alleged that the family members of the plaintiff had beaten her. Same facts have been admitted by the defendant in her evidence. However, no report was lodged at the Police Station by the defendant in this regard at that time. It is alleged that the family members of the plaintiff had beaten her. Same facts have been admitted by the defendant in her evidence. In such circumstances, the Trial Court has rightly held that the defendant had levelled baseless allegations in regard to demand of dowry and beating her by the family members of the plaintiff. The defendant also pleaded that the plaintiff had illicit relationship with one lady, however, she does not name that lady. It means that the allegations levelled by the defendant are without any basis. It is an admitted fact that the defendant did not turn up to the house of the plaintiff for the last near about eight years inspite of service of notice in this regard. In such circumstance, in our opinion, the Trial Court has rightly held that the defendant practiced cruelty with the plaintiff. 10. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vishwanath v. Sarla, 2012(4) MPLJ 265 has held as under: A sustained attitude of causing humiliation and calculated torture on the part of the wife to make the life of the husband miserable, with such mental pain, agony and suffering, the husband cannot be asked to put up with the conduct of the wife and to continue to live with her, husband is entitled to a decree for divorce. 11. Hon'ble the Supreme Court further held in this case that the Court can grant permanent alimony in favour of wife at the time of passing a decree of divorce. 12. Hon'ble the Supreme Court further in K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, AIR 2013 SC 2176 has held as under in regard to mental cruelty under section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Staying together under the same roof is not a pre-condition for mental cruelty. Spouse can cause mental cruelty by his or her conduct even while he or she is not staying under the same roof. In a given case, while staying away, a spouse can cause mental cruelty to the other spouse by sending vulgar and defamatory letters or notices or filing complaints containing indecent allegations or by initiating number of judicial proceedings making the other spouse's life miserable. 13. In the present case, the defendant had levelled allegations of demand of dowry and also filed a complaint in this regard. 13. In the present case, the defendant had levelled allegations of demand of dowry and also filed a complaint in this regard. Prima facie, the allegations do not appear to be true. Apart from this, she did not turn up to live with the plaintiff for the last eight years in such circumstances, on the basis of the principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in above mentioned judgments, in our opinion, the findings recorded by the Trial Court that the defendant practiced cruelty with the plaintiff is in accordance with law. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly granted a decree of divorce in favour of the plaintiff under section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 14. In regard to grant of permanent alimony, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Chand Dhawan (Smt.) v. Jawaharlal Dhawan, (1993) 3 SCC 406 has held that the Court has power to grant permanent alimony while passing a decree of divorce. Relevant findings of Hon'ble the Supreme Court are as under: The Hindu Marriage Act preserved the right of permanent alimony in favour of the husband or the wife, as the case may be, dependent on the court passing a decree of the kind as envisaged under sections 9 to 14 of the Act. When by court intervention under the Hindu Marriage Act, affectation or disruption to the marital status has come by, at that juncture, while passing the decree, it has the power to grant permanent alimony or maintenance, if that power is invoked at that time. 15. Same facts have been reiterated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in K. Srinivas Rao (supra) and Vishwanath (supra). 16. In the present case, the Trial Court has granted permanent alimony of Rupees 2,50,000/-. It is a fact that the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class granted maintenance at Rupees 1,500/- per month in favour of the defendant/wife. It is also a fact that the defendant had no other income for her livelihood. The Trial Court further held that the monthly income of the plaintiff was at Rupees 20,000/-. Plaintiff has not challenged the aforesaid finding of the Trial Court, hence, income of the plaintiff is held at Rupees 20,000/- per month. 17. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vishwanath (supra) further held as under in regard to grant of permanent alimony: 41. Plaintiff has not challenged the aforesaid finding of the Trial Court, hence, income of the plaintiff is held at Rupees 20,000/- per month. 17. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vishwanath (supra) further held as under in regard to grant of permanent alimony: 41. Presently, we shall deal with the aspect pertaining to the grant of permanent alimony. The Court of first instance has rejected the application filed by the respondent wife as no decree for divorce was granted and there was no severance of marital status. We refrain from commenting on the said view as we have opined that the husband is entitled to a decree for divorce. Permanent alimony is to be granted taking into consideration the social status, the conduct of the parties, the way of living of the spouse and such other ancillary aspects. During the course of hearing of the matter, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties on this aspect. After taking instructions from the respective parties, they have addressed us. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that till 21-2-2012 an amount of Rs. 17,60,000/- has been paid towards maintenance to the wife as directed by the Courts below and hence, that should be deducted from the amount to be fixed. He has further submitted that the permanent alimony should be fixed at Rs. 25 lacs. The learned counsel for the respondent, while insisting for affirmance of the decisions of the High Court as well as by the Courts below, has submitted that the amount that has already been paid should not be taken into consideration as the same has been paid within a span of number of years and the deduction would affect the future sustenance. He has emphasised on the income of the husband, the progress in the business, the inflation in the cost of living and the way of life the respondent is expected to lead. He has also canvassed that the age factor and the medical aid and assistance that are likely to be needed should be considered and the permanent alimony should be fixed at Rs. 75 lacs. 42. In our considered opinion, the amount that has already been paid to the respondent-wife towards alimony is to be ignored as the same had been paid by virtue of interim orders passed by the courts. 75 lacs. 42. In our considered opinion, the amount that has already been paid to the respondent-wife towards alimony is to be ignored as the same had been paid by virtue of interim orders passed by the courts. It is not expected that the respondent-wife has sustained herself without spending the said money. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the social strata from which the parties come from and regard being had to the business prospects of the appellant, permanent alimony of Rs. 50 lacs (rupees fifty lacs only) should be fixed and, accordingly, we do so. The said amount of Rs. 50 lacs (rupees fifty lacs only) shall be deposited by way of bank draft before the trial court within a period of four months and the same shall be handed over to the respondent-wife on proper identification. 18. In the case of K. Srinivas Rao (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held in regard to grant of permanent alimony as under: While we are of the opinion that decree of divorce must be granted, we are alive to the plight of the respondent-wife. The appellant-husband is working as Assistant Registrar in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. He is getting a good salary. The respondent-wife fought the litigation for more than 10 years She appears to be entirely dependent on her parents and on her brother, therefore, her future must be secured by directing the appellant-husband to give her permanent alimony. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the appellant-husband should be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) to the respondent-wife as and by way of permanent alimony. 19. In the present case, income of the plaintiff has been fixed by the Trial Court at Rupees 20,000/- per month. The defendant has no means of her livelihood. Hon'ble the Supreme Court further observed in the case of Vishwanath (supra) that while fixing permanent alimony, income of the husband, progress in the business, the inflation in the cost of living and the fact that the wife has to live in that span for number of years has to be considered. 20. Considering all the factors, in our opinion, it would be just and proper to fix permanent alimony at Rupees Eight Lakhs. 20. Considering all the factors, in our opinion, it would be just and proper to fix permanent alimony at Rupees Eight Lakhs. It is further ordered that in the event of getting permanent alimony, appellant/defendant-wife would not be entitled to get any maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. or under any other proceedings. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The decree of divorce granted by the Trial Court is upheld subject to payment of permanent alimony of Rupees Eight Lakhs to the appellant wife. The aforesaid amount of Rupees Eight Lakhs shall be paid in three instalments. The first instalment of Rupees Three Lakhs shall be paid within a period of two months, second instalment of Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand shall be paid within two months thereafter and the third instalment of Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand within two months after payment of second instalment. The total amount of Rupees Eight Lakhs shall be payable in six months. No order as to costs.