JUDGMENT Mary Joseph, J Mat Appeal Nos.573/2014 and 270/2014 are preferred against the order passed by Family Court, Irinjalakuda on 10.04.2013 in O.P No.18/2012 and Mat Appeal No.574/2014, against the order passed by Family Court, Irinjalakuda on the same date in O.P No.10/2012. 2. Against an order granting a decree for dissolution of marriage in favour of the husband on the ground of cruelty and permanent alimony of Rs.4,00,000/-to the wife, the respective aggrieved parties have preferred Mat. Appeal Nos.573/2014 and 270/2014. 3. O.P No.10/2012 was filed by the wife seeking for return of gold ornaments, cash and past maintenance from her husband and it was dismissed by the Family Court. Being aggrieved thereby, the wife has filed Mat Appeal No.574/2014 challenging the said order. 4. Challenge was made against orders in O.P No.18/2012 and 10/2012 by the parties alleging that orders are vitiated for erroneous appreciation of evidence and therefore, illegal. According to Sri.Dinesh Mathew J. Murikan, the learned counsel for the appellant/wife in Mat. Appeal No.574/2014, the court below dismissed O.P No.10/2012 mainly for the reason that entrustment of 6¾ sovereigns of gold and cash worth Rs.50,000/-were not properly pleaded and proved by her. The learned counsel has also contended that Ext.P1 marked in evidence clearly establish entrustment of Rs.50,000/-by her parents as her share from the family. According to him, PW2, the father of PW1 had also spoken categorically that 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments had been given to the latter at the time of her marriage. It is urged that in the schedule appended to the petition, the gold ornaments sought to be recovered is particularly described and the wife has also tendered oral evidence to establish that 6¾ sovereigns of gold was misappropriated by her husband and in laws. According to him, though ample evidence was available supportive of the claim of the wife, the Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by her in its proper perspective and thereby the decree for recovery of money and gold ornaments was declined to be passed in her favour. 5. Challenge against the order granting Rs.4,00,000/-as permanent alimony to the wife was raised by the husband mainly for the reason that it actually was not applied for by her. According to Sri. 5. Challenge against the order granting Rs.4,00,000/-as permanent alimony to the wife was raised by the husband mainly for the reason that it actually was not applied for by her. According to Sri. V.M. Krishnakumar, Section 25 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 specifically provides for filing of an application for obtaining that relief and the relief having been granted without any application for the purpose being filed by the wife, the order is per se illegal. It is also pointed out that the fixation of a lumpsum as alimony without considering the income of the husband, is arbitrary and not judicious. 6. According to Sri. Dinesh Mathew J. Murikan, the learned counsel, the Family Court in O.P. No.18/2012 has gone wrong in arriving at a finding of cruelty against the wife solely based on the oral evidence tendered by the husband as PW1 therein, that she was reluctant to do any household work and to mingle with his relatives, that she used to sit idle thinking over some matters and that she attempted to cause miscarriage of child by consuming herbal medicines and to commit suicide. According to him, the alleged acts are not liable to be treated as cruelty, as those, even if taken as true would only tantamount to usual wear and tear in life. According to him, PW2 examined by the husband being a neighbour, his version ought not to have been relied on by the court. 7. O.P Nos.10/2012 and 18/2012 were considered by the Family Court and orders have been passed separately on 10.04.2013 itself. Evidence in O.P No.18/2012 consists of oral evidence of the husband as PW1, his witness as PW2 and the wife as RW1. Documentary evidence adduced consist of Exts.A1 and A2 and Ext.B1 respectively. Evidence of the petitioner in O.P. No.10/2012 consists of oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 and that of the respondents consists of oral evidence of RW1 and RW2. Documentary evidence consist of Exts.A1 to A4. 8. Dispute is not raised against the caste to which the parties belong and solemnisation of the marriage on 15.12.2003 at Durga Devi Temple in Thevuruth as per Hindu religious rites and custom. Admittedly they lived together for a short period. 9. With the passage of time, relationship got strained and the husband was constrained to seek for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Admittedly they lived together for a short period. 9. With the passage of time, relationship got strained and the husband was constrained to seek for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. He tendered oral evidence before the Family Court as PW1. He categorically stated about the reluctance of the wife to reside with him in the matrimonial home by discharging the marital obligations. According to him, on 15.09.2004 she was taken to her parental home for delivery and thereafter did not return to the matrimonial home despite the efforts taken by him severally. Ultimately, Ext.A2 lawyer notice was sent demanding for a divorce by mutual consent. 10. The wife as RW1 has stoutly denied the aforesaid version of PW1 and stated that even after leaving the matrimonial home, herself and child returned thereto following settlement of issues in a mediation process, but did not stay together for long, due to her apprehension that their life would be endangered. Though the husband had taken a specific stand in Ext.A3 lawyer notice that the wife had left his company permanently on 15.09.2004, she failed even to sent a reply notice denying the factum. She did not examine her parents, relatives or the so called mediators to establish the factum that she returned to the matrimonial home and stayed there for some time following settlement of issues in mediation. Wife's evidence is confined to her own interested version without it being supported by independent evidence. In the absence of evidence from the wife that she had returned to the matrimonial home after leaving there on 15.09.2004, there is every reason to take a view that she had wilfully deserted her husband permanently from 15.09.2004. The Family Court was correct in taking a view in that regard. The finding being in the correct perspective, interference is uncalled for. 11. The husband had stated during examination that while staying in the matrimonial home the wife was reluctant to do any household work, that she used to keep aloof gloomy without mingling with the inmates of the house, that she had resorted to measures to abort the child in her womb by consuming herbal medicines and that on 14.06.2004 she attempted to commit suicide by hanging in a sari on the roof of the bed room. A neighbour of PW1 was examined as PW2 and he had categorically stated about transportation of the wife to the hospital following her attempt to commit suicide. PW2 survived the efforts of the wife in the lengthy cross examination to discredit him. 12. As RW1, the wife had not spoken that husband or her in-laws had ill treated her mentally or physically. True that an allegation was raised in the counter statement that there were demands of dowry from the husband but, RW1 failed to depose those to form part of evidence from her side. RW1 also failed to project any constraints she had faced at the matrimonial home from the husband or his relatives which compelled her to leave their company permanently. She did not speak about any ill treatment meted out by her at the hands of her husband and in-laws. Therefore, it can be taken for granted that by neglecting to perform the duties of a wife and by denying the husband access to the child, she has treated her husband with mental cruelty. The attempt of the wife to commit suicide is nothing but a manifestation of her intention to mentally torture the husband who was proved by her own testimony to be one, caring and loving. Marriage presupposes living together in harmony. It contemplates mutuality in thoughts and deeds. It involves performance of mutual obligations by the parties to the bondage. The circumstances which constrained the husband to sent Ext.A3 notice on 24.03.2007 itself show that the husband was patient enough to wait till that time for the wife to join him and to resume the conjugal relationship. The wife remained in adamance and therefore, the husband was constrained to file the original petition seeking for a decree of dissolution of marriage. Any cogent reason justifying a separated life having not been spoken by RW1 during evidence, by keeping herself away from the company of her husband depriving him the co-habitation to which he is entitled to during subsistence of the matrimony, is nothing short of mental cruelty. By keeping away with the child, the wife has also denied the husband's access to the child and enjoyment of his company which action also cannot be equated to anything short of mental cruelty. By keeping away with the child, the wife has also denied the husband's access to the child and enjoyment of his company which action also cannot be equated to anything short of mental cruelty. In the backdrop of the evidence of the nature, the Family Court cannot be taken to have erred in holding that wife has treated the husband with mental cruelty sufficient to grant a decree for divorce in favour of the husband. 13. It is an admitted factum that the wife left the matrimonial home for delivery on 15.09.2004 and failed to return thereafter. Her version that she had been brought to the matrimonial home pursuant to a mediation process was not established. Therefore, the claim of the husband that the wife deserted him permanently, particularly from 15.09.2004, is only to be believed. The proven facts indicate that the parties were at loggerheads and were living separated without efforts ever been made by the wife to join the husband. The dictum of the Apex Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [ (2007) 4 SCC 511 ] directs us in the context to take a view that the marriage among the parties had been broken irretrievably. A marital knot kept broken for a prolonged period of 15 years is difficult to be tied up and even if does so, will not last long. Therefore, by denying a decree for dissolution of marriage, the relationship of the parties to the marriage will never be improved, rather it would work out sheer prejudices in the lives of both. The Family Court had passed the impugned order after consciously delving on all related aspects. Therefore, a justifiable reason is not made out to interfere with the impugned judgment. 14. The husband though satisfied with the grant of the decree for divorce, is aggrieved by the direction of the Family Court to pay permanent alimony to the wife to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-. The argument of the learned counsel was that permanent alimony is something to be granted on application being filed by the wife seeking for that. The learned counsel condemned the Family Court for granting the relief suo motu without any application being filed by the wife in that regard. 15. The argument of the learned counsel was that permanent alimony is something to be granted on application being filed by the wife seeking for that. The learned counsel condemned the Family Court for granting the relief suo motu without any application being filed by the wife in that regard. 15. Whether the relief is something to be granted only on preferring an application is the crucial question involved in the context on hand and we find it apposite to extract Section 25 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 for reference: “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. (2) If the Court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the Court may deem just. (3) If the Court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made under this section has re-married or, if such party is the wife, that she has not remained chaste, or if such party is the husband, that he has had sexual intercourse with any woman outside wedlock, [it may at the instance of other party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the Court may deem just].” 16. As contended by the learned counsel for the husband, the wife had not preferred any application to obtain permanent alimony before the Family Court which seized of the Original Petition seeking for a decree of dissolution of marriage. It is relevant to notice from the provision extracted above that the words “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 …......” indicate that the court while disposing of an application for dissolution of marriage is empowered to exercise discretion in the matter of grant of a periodical sum as permanent alimony. It is indicated therefrom that the court is empowered to act suo motu. As per the provision, if the court fails to grant it in exercise of authority suo motu, it is left open to either of the parties to apply for that, even at a later point of time and the court can grant a decree in that regard, either as a gross sum or sum payable monthly or periodically during the life time of the party applying for that and not beyond that. In the process, the court is empowered to conduct an independent enquiry. The parties must adduce evidence about their income and other properties, their conduct and other circumstances of the case, that may seem to it, just. The court shall look into the materials placed in evidence by the parties and make a reasonable assessment of the sum payable as permanent alimony. The court can also direct security to be furnished by the party liable to pay, to ensure payment of the sum arrived at as permanent alimony, by creating a charge on his/her immovable property. If the court decides to grant permanent alimony to a party entitled for that suo motu it need not conduct a separate enquiry, rather, can confine the determination of the quantum payable as permanent alimony, to the materials already on record in the original petition seeking divorce, seized of by the court. 17. In the case on hand, the Family Court has considered the matter suo motu while passing the decree for dissolution of marriage and directed the husband to pay Rs.4,00,000/-as permanent alimony to the wife. 17. In the case on hand, the Family Court has considered the matter suo motu while passing the decree for dissolution of marriage and directed the husband to pay Rs.4,00,000/-as permanent alimony to the wife. A view in consonance was also taken by the Karnataka High Court in Amit Vinay Welangi v. Nupur Amit Welangi ( AIR 2018 Kar. 156 ) and Andhra Pradesh High Court in T.Mohan Reddy v. Poty Krishnaveni (AIR 2010 AP 170) that for grant of permanent alimony in the decree, specific application need not be filed. In the case on hand, the Family Court has suo motu ordered to grant a lumpsum of Rs.4,00,000/-as permanent alimony based on the materials available to it and in exercise of its discretion. The Family Court had also taken care of the factum discerned from evidence that the child begotten to the parties in the marriage, is a deformed child. The sum arrived at as payable and ordered to be paid is undoubtedly a reasonable sum. If the court is inclined to pass an order directing the husband to pay permanent alimony in the decree passed in the main case for dissolution of marriage pending on its file itself, it is discretionary for the court to arrive at the sum payable based on materials already on record. It is the court's discretion and in exercise of it, among other aspects it has also taken into account the deformity of the child. The sum arrived at as payable is a lumpsum of Rs.4,00,000/-, which is a reasonable sum. The amount directed to be paid being only Rs.4,00,000/-and that was arrived at by taking into account of all constraints the wife in a dissolved marriage has to face in the process of taking care of a deformed child, we have no hesitation to hold that the sum is reasonable. 18. The wife's claim for return of money and gold ornaments was declined by the Family Court by order passed on 10.04.2013 in O.P. No.10 of 2012. The wife had raised a claim in the petition that 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and a sum of Rs.50,000/-were given to her by her parents at the time of marriage and those were entrusted to the husband and in-laws. The wife had raised a claim in the petition that 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and a sum of Rs.50,000/-were given to her by her parents at the time of marriage and those were entrusted to the husband and in-laws. According to her, out of those, three bangles of three sovereigns, chain of 1¾ sovereigns and the ornaments given to the child were taken by them and appropriated for their purpose. The husband and in-laws strictly denied those. The wife attempted to discharge her burden in the case by producing the photocopy of a paper, allegedly the extract of the marriage register maintained in S.N.D.P office. It was marked as Ext.A1 subject to proof based on the opposition raised by the husband that it is only a photocopy. To prove the document, the then Secretary of S.N.D.P branch was summoned and examined as PW2. He had deposed on the basis of Ext.A1 that the wife was given 15 sovereigns of gold and Rs.50,000/-at the time of marriage. Admittedly, Ext.A1 was not signed or attested by PW2. During examination PW2 has also pleaded ignorance of direct knowledge of contents of Ext.A1. Though Ext.A1 was marked subject to proof the original marriage Register was not summoned to have a comparison of contents of both. Therefore the examination of PW2 and marking of Ext.A1 turned a futile exercise. During cross examination the case of wife in O.P. No.10/2012 was that cash worth Rs.50,000/-was entrusted with the uncle of her husband during the marriage ceremony in the presence of public. But neither her uncle nor any members of the public who had attended the marriage ceremony were examined by her. Even the wife has no case that the amount given to the uncle of her husband was handed over to the husband then and there or at any later point of time. Therefore the wife has thoroughly failed to establish her precise case that Rs.50,000/-was entrusted to the husband during the marriage ceremony. 19. As per the pleadings of the wife in the Original Petition, except the gold ornaments described in schedule 'A' appended to the petition, the rest of the ornaments were taken back at the time when she left the house of her husband on 24.01.2006. When confronted with the design of the ornaments, she pleaded ignorance. Admittedly, the wife was taken to her parental home on 15.09.2004 for delivery. When confronted with the design of the ornaments, she pleaded ignorance. Admittedly, the wife was taken to her parental home on 15.09.2004 for delivery. The husband has a case that the wife did not return to the matrimonial home thereafter. Though a claim of return to the matrimonial home after delivery was taken by the wife, in the absence of any corroborative version lending support to it, that was discarded. Therefore in the circumstances exist, the view probable was that the wife never returned to her matrimonial home after leaving there for delivery. As per the custom prevalent in the community also, when the wife is taken to her parental home for first delivery, the entire ornaments will be adorned. Therefore, it is probable in the case on hand for the wife to take all the gold ornaments with her unless she has a specific case that her gold ornaments were appropriated by the husband and in-laws prior to that occasion itself or that those were again entrusted to them. Evidence in that regard is not forthcoming. Therefore, the wife has thoroughly failed to establish entrustment and appropriation of gold ornaments, by cogent and reliable evidence. She has also failed to establish that 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments have been given to her by her parents at the time of her marriage. In the above context that the Family Court has declined the wife's claim for return of Rs.50,000/-and the gold ornaments. 20. We do not find any reason to hold that the Family Court has erred in taking such a view and declining thereby to grant the decree sought for return of gold ornaments and recovery of money. We are convinced that O.P. No.10/2012 was dismissed by the Family Court, Irinjalakuda on its correct appreciation of evidence by order dated 10.04.2013 and interference is uncalled for. In the result, the Matrimonial Appeals are dismissed.