JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, Servesh Kumar Gupta, JJ. Per : Serve By way of this appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and order dated 11.1.2012 rendered by the Additional Family Judge, Rishikesh decreeing the Divorce Petition No. 1/2009, titled as Smt. Rashmi v. Aman Panchal. Learned Trial Judge has also granted the permanent alimony to the tune of rupees five lakhs and also the amount to the tune of Rs. 1,51,000/-, which was spent by the father of the bride at the time of engagement before marriage. Learned Trial Judge did not grant any other amount for the maintenance of Smt. Rashmi as she was getting Rs. 1200/- per mensem as maintenance all around during the pendency of the said petition. 2. Smt. Rashmi’s parental house is at Rishikesh, District Dehradun, while Aman Panchal’s (her husband) house is at Shahdara, Delhi. Both tied their nuptial knot on 17.2.2002 in accordance with the Hindu rituals at Rishkesh. As the averments go, her father spent almost rupees six lakhs in the solemnization of the marriage, but Aman Panchal and his parents were not satisfied with the dowry and the cash payment given before or at the time of marriage and even thereafter. They kept on demanding the cash money time and again. Their insatiable demands were met by the father of Smt. Rashmi to secure the peaceful and respectful living of his daughter in her in-laws house. Even repeated payments of cash could not console the lust for money on the part of Aman Panchal and his parents and she was subjected to continuous torture in the in-laws house. She was traumatized. Her traumatic travails went to the extent that on 3.5.2004, Aman Panchal did not return in the house where he was staying with his wife Smt. Rashmi for as many as two weeks. Prior to this, she was beaten on 18.4.2004 on account of her failure to fetch more and more money from her father in the form of dowry and even the attempt was made to sprinkle the kerosene oil on her body and on 26.9.2003, attempt was made to strangulate her throat. The reports were also lodged in the concerning police station for those incidents. She left the house of her husband out of dejection because Aman Panchal did not return to the house for almost two weeks. The reports were also lodged in the concerning police station for those incidents. She left the house of her husband out of dejection because Aman Panchal did not return to the house for almost two weeks. Before leaving the house, she informed the police at Delhi in the concerning police station. Her husband Aman Panchal, an Electronic Engineer, was in job in a multi-national company in Delhi. So, they used to reside in Delhi. 3. There is a long tale of torture, tormented and teasing behaviour as averred by Smt. Rashmi in her pleadings before the court below. All those pleadings were denied by the appellant Aman Panchal with the facts that the respondent (wife) left the house of her husband at her own. When he instituted a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, then compromise was entered into between the parties and as the compounding terms reveal, they used to reside separately from the parental house of Aman Panchal. Hitherto, his wife Smt. Rashmi could not live amicably and left the house in order to lead an independent life. Appellant has resisted the permanent alimony on the ground that he is still ready to keep his wife with him and all the jewellaries in the form of Stridhan, which was offered by her father before or at the time of marriage, had been taken away by her at the time of leaving the home. The court below, after taking the evidence and considering the pros and cons decreed the petition of the respondent, as has been stated above. So, feeling aggrieved, Aman Panchal is before us. 4. We have heard learned Counsels of either parties and have gone through the evidence on record and also the merits, which have been discussed by the learned Judge of the Family Court. 5. Before proceeding further, we would like to mention the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court made in an of-late judgment rendered in the case Gurnaib Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 108 . Although Gurnaib Singh’s case was of dowry death case, but the excerpts, as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, are relevant to mention here as below:- “A daughter-in-law is to be treated as a member of the family with warmth and affection and not as a stranger with despicable and ignoble indifference. Although Gurnaib Singh’s case was of dowry death case, but the excerpts, as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, are relevant to mention here as below:- “A daughter-in-law is to be treated as a member of the family with warmth and affection and not as a stranger with despicable and ignoble indifference. She should not be treated as a housemaid. No impression should be given that she can be thrown out of her matrimonial home at any time. Respect of a bride in her matrimonial home glorifies the solemnity and sanctity of marriage, reflects the sensitivity of a civilized society and, eventually, epitomizes her aspirations dreamt of in nuptial bliss. But, the manner in which sometimes the brides are treated in many a home by the husband, in-laws and the relatives creates a feeling of emotional numbness in society.” 6. The traumatized attitude posed by Aman Panchal and his parents towards Smt. Rashmi on the question of dowry has been found proved beyond doubt so much so to fix the criminal liability upon them and to find them guilty for the offences of Sections 498A, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They all were convicted not only by the Court of the Magistrate, but their conviction was affirmed even by the learned Appellate Court. Only the revision is pending in the High Court against that conviction, and in the revision the High Court is not supposed to re-appreciate the evidence on factual issues. Meaning thereby, as regards the facts of cruelty and insatiable conduct on the part of appellant and his parents towards the bride Smt. Rashmi on the question of dowry, these have been proved beyond any shadow of doubt and it is difficult to overlook such concurrent findings of the learned Trial Magistrate as well as the Appellate Court on such score. 7. We do not agree with the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that the said findings of the criminal courts cannot be taken into consideration while deciding this appeal because fact in issue is the same as Smt. Rashmi was subjected to cruel conduct on the part of Aman Panchal and his parents raising the demands of dowry time and again. She was left with no option but to leave the house of her husband after waiting for his return for as many as ten days in the house and having no foodstuffs available in the house to keep her alive. This was a big cruelty at the hands of her husband, which she was left alone in Delhi house to face. 8. We do not want to burden our judgment by way of repetition of the same facts which have been discussed in the impugned judgment and feel satisfied that the conduct of appellant Aman Panchal and her parents was such as is covered within the ambit of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 9. As regards the quantum of permanent alimony, we feel that the amount is not exorbitant in any manner because Aman Panchal is an Electronic Engineer and he was posted in a multi-national company as Marketing Executive. He along with his father own two houses, one in Shahdara, which being at the outskirt of Delhi is almost Delhi, and another in Delhi itself. Appellant has admitted that those properties are owned by his father. It cannot be accepted that an Electronic Engineer having experience in his hand to serve in a multi-national company would be earning only Rs. 4000-5000 per mensem as averred by him. So, looking to the sound monetary position of the appellant, we also feel that the amount of rupees five lakhs as a permanent alimony granted to the respondent is not much. Rather, it is in the lesser side, but we are unable to enhance this amount in the absence of any appeal against this order by Smt. Rashmi. As regards the return of Rs.1,51,000/-, the amount which was spent by her father before the marriage at the time of engagement, is also quite appropriate. So, we do not find any scope to interfere with the impugned judgment. We affirm the same. This appeal is bereft of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Smt. Rashmi is free to receive the cash deposited by the appellant in the Registry of this Court in compliance of the order dated 21.3.2012. Lower Court Records be sent back.