JUDGMENT : 1. None appears for the appellant at the hearing today. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the respondent and have perused the trial Court record. 3. The respondent sued appellant for divorce alleging cruelty. Her case was that the marriage between the couple was solemnised as per Hindu customs on 22.4.2015. For about four months there was no problem in the matrimonial house. After four months, the father and mother of the appellant i.e. her in-laws started demanding dowry in the form of a jeep and under instigation of her parents, the appellant used to beat her. He used to support the dowry demand made by his parents. That the appellant used to send her through the mobile phone filthy and vulgar messages and for which she was forced to lodge a complaint under the I.T. Act. That she was thrown out of the matrimonial house on 19.8.2015 after being beaten and for which she lodged an F.I.R. for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 406 I.P.C. in which the appellant was convicted by the learned Magistrate on 9.2.2017. The respondent also sought permanent alimony. 4. In the reply filed, the appellant denied having troubled the respondent on account of dowry. He pleaded that his wife was lodging false cases against him. 5. The trial Court record shows that on 10.1.2018, the respondent examined herself as AW-1 and deposed facts in sync with her pleadings. She proved the order dated 9.2.2017 by which the appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months. The same is Exhibit-1. 6. The cross examination was cryptic. Suggestions made to the respondent are that she was deposing falsity. Needless to say she denied the same. 7. The order-sheet dated 10.1.2018 shows that after the respondent closed her evidence, the appellant made a statement that he does not want to lead any evidence. 8. Be that as it may, in view of the testimony of the respondent and proof of the appellant being convicted for dowry demand and there being no rebuttal evidence the learned Judge Family Court vide judgment dated 19.1.2018 has allowed the petition filed by the respondent granting divorce. Permanent alimony in sum of Rs. 8. Be that as it may, in view of the testimony of the respondent and proof of the appellant being convicted for dowry demand and there being no rebuttal evidence the learned Judge Family Court vide judgment dated 19.1.2018 has allowed the petition filed by the respondent granting divorce. Permanent alimony in sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month which was awarded under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been awarded with a stipulation that the same will be paid till the respondent got remarried. 9. Surprisingly enough in the impugned decision in paragraph 5, there is a reference to some proceedings initiated under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. We have perused the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led and find no reference in the record of the learned Judge Family Court to any proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 10. Taking advantage of a reference to proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the impugned judgment in appeal it is pleaded that the respondent left the matrimonial house without a justifiable cause and the appellant has an order in his favour under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 11. In the appeal, no particulars of the said proceedings had been given. As noted above in the trial Court record there is neither any document to prove the same nor there is reference in the pleadings. Thus, nothing turns on the grounds urged in the appeal concerning proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 12. As regards the merits of the impugned judgment, in view of the facts noted by us herein above the appellant led no evidence in rebuttal, we are constrained to uphold the decision of learned Judge Family Court, Jalore dated 19.1.2018. 13. The appeal is dismissed.