JUDGMENT : Ashok Kumar Joshi, J. The appellant/original petitioner has filed this first appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 being partially dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 26/10/2015 passed by Fourth Addl. District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.189- A/2012, by which the trial Court has ordered to the appellant to pay Rs.2,50,000/- in lieu of her stridhan and to pay an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- as permanent alimony to the respondent, though the petition filed by the appellant-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed and a decree for divorce has been granted in favour of the appellant and against the respondent-wife on the ground of cruelty committed by the respondent. 2. Undisputedly, the marriage between the parties had solemnized on 7.3.2011 at Panagar, district Jabalpur. It would be significant to mention here that the respondent had separately filed an Appeal No.1067/15 against the above mentioned decree of divorce, but the same was dismissed on 23/2/2017 due to want of prosecution, as none had appeared on that day. 3. The appellant, as petitioner filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on pleadings that after one month from the marriage, appellant was appointed in service of M.P. Electricity Board on contract basis. For service, the petitioner lived at distant places like Neemach, Sujalpur and Mandsaur, thus, he remained unable to keep his wife with him at work places. Thus, respondent lived with his parents at Nainpur and in the meanwhile the appellant used to come to his parents' house after taking leave. After marriage the respondent was not willing to live with parents of the husband and she was also desirous that all the earnings of the husband be given to her and nothing should be given to his parents. She was habitual of quarrelling on trivial issues and committed rude behaviour with her husband and his parents and threatened them and harassed mentally by giving threatening to implicate them in criminal cases. Respondent told to the husband that he is a black coloured man and she had married with him only due to pressure of her parents. 4. It was further pleaded by the petitioner that in the year 2011 respondent became pregnant thus, petitioner and his family members were happy. Respondent told to the husband that he is a black coloured man and she had married with him only due to pressure of her parents. 4. It was further pleaded by the petitioner that in the year 2011 respondent became pregnant thus, petitioner and his family members were happy. In the meanwhile, at the time of festival of Deepawali, respondent's mother and elder sister came to Nainpur to meet the respondent and on their instigation, after taking medicine brought from the market secretly, respondent aborted the child without permission of the husband and his family members, thus husband and his family members received mental shock. Thereafter, without taking permission, respondent with her relative left the house of parents of the husband and reached to Panagar at her parents' house. On 30/1/2012, when petitioner was in district Neemach, then respondent with her brother and other family members reached to Police Station Nainpur and lodged a false report against the husband and his family members. Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before Family Court, Mandla for restitution of conjugal rights. After receiving the knowledge of above mentioned proceedings, respondent lodged a false report at Mahila Police Station, Madan Mahal Jabalpur against husband and his family members in relation to dowry demand. He explained the matter at police station Madan Mahal, thus relating police station did not initiate any proceeding. Thereafter, on 26/4/2012, respondent lodged a false report at police station Panagar to destroy the image of family of her husband, as at that time the mother of the husband was contesting the election for the post of President of Nagar Palika, Nainpur. The respondent had deserted the husband from Deepawali, 2011 and she had treated with cruelty by above mentioned acts. Thus, the decree for divorce was prayed. 5. The respondent pleaded in her written reply that before marriage cash Rs.5 Lacs and material household property were demanded by the petitioner from the father of the respondent, for which he did not agree, then appellant became ready for marriage on receiving cash of Rs.2,51,000/- and ornaments of gold and silver and household property. She did not quarrel with her husband and his family members and never threatened to implicate them in any false case. She did not tell anything to her husband about his colour. She did not quarrel with her husband and his family members and never threatened to implicate them in any false case. She did not tell anything to her husband about his colour. She was totally obedient and gave proper respect to family members of the husband. After the marriage, by parents and sister and the husband of the respondent, Rs.2 Lacs were demanded and brother of husband had given beating to her in relation to dowry demand. She was ousted in the night at 12.00 O'clock from the house by parents of the husband alongwith her brother. On 18/1/2012 she was also assaulted and after receiving information sent by her, her brother had come to Nainpur on 30/1/2012 and on that day her brother and respondent were abused, then with her brother, respondent spent night at Nainpur railway-stations retiring room and on next day, i.e. 31/1/2012 at police station Nainpur, she lodged police report and thereafter came to her parents' house. On 8/4/2012 she was assaulted by the husband at her parents house, thereafter she reported on 10/4/2012 at Mahila Police Station Jabalpur. It was denied that on instigation of her mother and elder sister she aborted the child. Due to harassment caused by the husband and his family members, respondent was compelled to live at her parents' house. It was prayed that the petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 6. The trial Court framed issues and before it Vishal (P.W-1), Vimlesh Soni (P.W-2), appellant's mother Rajkumari (P.W-3), were examined for the petitioner and for respondent Arti Gupta (D.W-1) was examined. After hearing, the trial Court recorded the findings that it was not proved that the wife has deserted her husband without any reasonable excuse for more than a period of two years prior to the time of presentation of petition; but it was found proved that respondent wife had treated the husband with cruelty and thus the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce against her. Consequently, a decree for divorce was granted, but in the decree, the appellant was also directed to pay in total an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the respondent. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant had vehemently contended that the learned trial Court had committed legal as well as factual error in granting the above mentioned decree for permanent alimony and stridhan. 10,00,000/- to the respondent. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant had vehemently contended that the learned trial Court had committed legal as well as factual error in granting the above mentioned decree for permanent alimony and stridhan. No any application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the wife before the trial Court regarding permanent alimony. It was proved that the respondent was having higher qualification of B.Sc. and Diploma in PGDCA and she is competent enough to earn her livelihood whereas the appellant is a person of lower income group. Above mentioned directions for payment have been given in total absence of evidence. It was found proved that respondent had treated the appellant with cruelty, thus she should not be allowed to take advantage of her own faults. Above mentioned directions regarding lump-sum payment of alimony and stridhan are merely based on conjectures and surmises overlooking the evidence of the case as well as hard realities of life. Thus, it is prayed that the directions for payment of above mentioned amount under the head of permanent alimony and stridhan in above mentioned judgment and decree be quashed. 8. Vishal (P.W-1) deposed in his examination-in-chief that after about one month of his marriage, he was appointed as Lineman and after receiving training at Ujjain, he was firstly posted at Sujalpur, thereafter posted at Neemach, Mandsaur and again posted at Neemach. But no any document in relation to his pay was filed before the trial Court. It has come in evidence that the family of Vishal is having a hotel at Nainpur and on the marriage card (Ex.P-17) published by Mahadev Prasad Gupta (father of Vishal) his pratisthans have been mentioned as Pancham Hotel and Masala & Aata Chakki. Mother of Vishal, Rajkumari (P.W-3) deposed in her cross-examination (para-16) that she is presently president of the Municipal Council, Nainpur and is receiving honorary allowance of Rs.4,800/-. She had deposed in para 15 that Vishal is working in the Electricity Department on contract basis and is receiving about Rs.7,000/- per month. Vishal has deposed in para 14 of his cross-examination that he is receiving Rs.7,000/- per month. 9. She had deposed in para 15 that Vishal is working in the Electricity Department on contract basis and is receiving about Rs.7,000/- per month. Vishal has deposed in para 14 of his cross-examination that he is receiving Rs.7,000/- per month. 9. Arti (D.W-1) deposed in her affidavit of examination-in-chief that previously Vishal was receiving Rs.7,000/- per month, but thereafter Vishal's service has been made permanent and after deduction, he is receiving Rs.18,000/- per month and mother of Vishal who is president of Municipal Corporation, Nainpur and her father-in-law is running a hotel in his own house and the younger brother of Vishal is serving in Railway and her father-in-law is also running a flour-mill and Masala Chakki along with the hotel and her father-in-law is earning Rs.30,000/- per month and is also receiving Rs.10,000/- per month as rent of houses and demanded that she should be given maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. She deposed in para 6 of her cross-examination that she is educated upto B.Sc., M.A and PGDCA and deposed that before marriage she was not teaching in any school and she never served in Priyanka Vidhya Mandir, Pariyat Panagar Road, Jabalpur and on this point a document (Ex.P-18) filed by husband is false. In para 7, she deposed that at present she is not doing any work and she is desirous that she be remained without any employment despite receiving higher education. But from the record of the trial Court, it appears that Arti had filed an application along with an affidavit of herself dated 21.09.2015 before the trial Court, in which it was stated that the certificate filed by Vishal in relation to her income (Ex.P-18) is false and she has received an experience certificate from Priyanka School on its letter head, on which it is recorded that she had worked in this school from 01.10.2012 to 31.03.2013. From application dated 21.09.2015 signed by Arti and his supportive affidavit, it is clear that previously she had worked as teacher in above-mentioned school from 01.10.2012 to 31.03.2013. Thus, it is clear that her deposition that she had never worked in above-mentioned school is false, which could not be believed. She is not having any child. It appears that she is able to maintain herself. 10. Thus, it is clear that her deposition that she had never worked in above-mentioned school is false, which could not be believed. She is not having any child. It appears that she is able to maintain herself. 10. The provision relating to permanent alimony is embodied under Section 25(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is as follows:- "Section 25. Permanent alimony and maintenance- (1) Any Court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to 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, it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent." 11. It is clear from the above-mentioned provision of Section 25(1) that permanent alimony can be ordered only when any party has filed any application before the trial Court. It is clear from the record of the trial Court that no any application was filed by Arti before the trial Court under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act for getting permanent alimony. It would be significant to mention here that regarding permanent alimony no specific prayer and pleadings was made by Arti in her written statement. 12. In the case of Mahesh Prasad v. Chhoti Bai, reported in [ 2003(2) M.P.LJ. 560 ] this Court has held as under :- "10. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of law there remains no iota of doubt that the direction issued by the learned trial Judge is unsustainable inasmuch as the decree for permanent alimony has been passed in the absence of application in that regard or any pleading to that effect in the written statement. As a logical corollary the decree passed by the learned trial Judge is set aside to that extent and it would be open to the respondent to file an independent application in this regard. As a logical corollary the decree passed by the learned trial Judge is set aside to that extent and it would be open to the respondent to file an independent application in this regard. If such an application is filed, the learned trial Judge shall bestow his anxious consideration and deal with the same in accordance with law." 13. In the light of recent citations, an educated and capable of earning spouse cannot be permitted to remain idle or without doing any work, only to extract money in the form of maintenance from the another spouse. It is clear from the above-mentioned signed written application filed by Arti dated 21/09/2015 that after marriage with appellant she had worked in Priyanka School as teacher from 1/10/2012 to 31/3/2013. She is not having any child. Nothing has come in her evidence to show that subsequently she had become unable to earn or work. We are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has not considered these relevant and material facts available in evidence and record of the case, while passing impugned order relating to permanent alimony in favour of the respondent. 14. It is clear from the statutory provision of Section 25(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, in reference to permanent alimony, the conduct of the parties is also material. The trial Court has found proved that Arti aborted her child without permission of her husband and his parents and thus, committed cruelty. It was also found proved that Arti lodged three reports against her husband and his family members. Arti (D.W.-1) admitted in para 20 of her cross-examination that on three occasions she lodged reports against husband and his family members and only on her third report, a case under Section 498-A of the IPC was registered. She clearly admitted in para 18 of her cross-examination that in her signed report (Ex.P-19) dated 31/1/2012, there is no any mention about dowry demand by husband and his relatives. It is clear from her total evidence that no action by Police was taken on her previous two reports. The learned lower Court has not considered this aspect in relation to conduct of respondent in reference to permanent alimony. It appears that the learned trial Court was much influenced on this point regarding various occupations of parents of Vishal, whereas permanent alimony should be granted only considering the earning and properties of husband. The learned lower Court has not considered this aspect in relation to conduct of respondent in reference to permanent alimony. It appears that the learned trial Court was much influenced on this point regarding various occupations of parents of Vishal, whereas permanent alimony should be granted only considering the earning and properties of husband. Thus, it is clear that the order regarding above-mentioned permanent alimony does not appear to be legal and justified, thus the appeal filed by the present appellant in reference to the trial Court's order relating to permanent alimony is worthy of acceptance. 15. So far as the direction of payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- in lieu of stridhan is concerned, it was admitted in evidence that household properties given at the time of marriage are still kept in house of parents of Vishal. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that during pendency of this appeal, the respondent has been intimated on various occasions to receive the relating articles back, but Arti has not received the relating articles back. Thus, the direction about payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- in lieu of stridhan appears to be proper and justified and in this regard, the appeal filed by Vishal appears to be devoid of merits. 16. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is partially allowed and the decree passed by the above-mentioned trial Court is modified to the extent that the direction of giving Rs. 7,50,000/- to Arti by appellant as permanent alimony is set-aside, but the remaining decree is upheld. A decree be drawn-up accordingly. No order as to costs.