ORDER : 1. This appeal is challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Vadodara on 29.11.2017 in Family Suit No. 151 of 2013 under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. The wife has challenged the same on the ground that she could not remain present while the final judgment and decree was passed as she had not been intimated as she lives at Gazipur, however that fact had not been disclosed before the Vadodara Court by the Husband. She continued to reside at Gazipur with her parents and she belongs to Uttar Pradesh and never to Gujarat. She therefore, has sought the following prayers: “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this First Appeal. (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated judgment, order and decree passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court, Baroda dated 29th November, 2017 in Family Suit No. 151 of 2013, in the interest of justice.” 3. Concerted efforts have been made for exploring the settlement between the parties on various dates by different forums, however, the same did not yield any results. We therefore, have undertaken final hearing of the appeal where learned advocate Ms. Datta for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Yadav for the respondent- original plaintiff are heard extensively. This arises from the judgment and decree where respondent husband had approached the Family Court, Vadodara for obtaining a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion and the same has been allowed in absence of wife. 4. The marriage between the spouses had been performed on 19.2.2009 at Gazipur, Uttar Pradesh. She joined her husband at Vadodara to perform her matrimonial obligations and they started their marital life at Vadodara. 5. It is averred by the respondent in the family suit that after 6 to 7 months of the solemnization of the marriage, the disputes started growing between the parties. It is alleged that without any rhyme or reason, the appellant was quarreling with the respondent and his parents. She was also avoiding to cooperate other members of the family and chose not to attend the daily chores. It is alleged that without any rhyme or reason, the appellant was quarreling with the respondent and his parents. She was also avoiding to cooperate other members of the family and chose not to attend the daily chores. Her use of filthy language to the respondent and parents, as also the threats of locking herself in the room and spending more time in the room, are the reasons which are said to have caused immense pressure upon the respondent and other grounds for cruelty put forth before this Court. 6. It was the say of the respondent that for the passage of time, the respondent was under the hope that the things would improvise, however with no change in the family circumstances. In February 2011, she had called her father from Uttar Pradesh for alleging grievances against the respondent and his family where the false representation has also made as he approached the Sayajiganj Police Station, Vadodara in respect of the alleged cruelty meted out to the appellant and eventually her father had taken her to the Uttar Pradesh with all her belongings. 7. It is further the say of the respondent that when she did not return to her matrimonial home, the notice had been sent, which she never bothered to reply. Eventually, she was brought back in the month of September 2011 and then lived in for peacefully, however, after one month disputes arose again and the mother of the respondent had approached the Mahila Police Station for getting the protection from the appellant and appellant had left on 1.2.2012 respondent’s house without any reasonable cause or excuse. 8. It appears that notice had been issued after the petition was instituted and the written statement also had been filed by the present appellant at Exh.14 before the trial Court. She admitted the solemnization of the marriage, however it was alleged that after consuming the liquor, the respondent was hurling filthy abuses at her and he was subjecting her to mental and physical cruelty. She had tolerated all these in a hope for shiny days in the life. She was driven out of the house on account of demand of dowry and therefore, she also had made a complaint under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code before the Court at Uttar Pradesh. She had tolerated all these in a hope for shiny days in the life. She was driven out of the house on account of demand of dowry and therefore, she also had made a complaint under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code before the Court at Uttar Pradesh. It is her say that she is spending her life all by herself at her parental home and the respondent is running 4-5 shops of selling snacks “Pani-Puri.” She has demanded an amount of maintenance of Rs. 20000/- (Twenty Thousand only) per month and expenses in all had became the sum of Rs. 25,000/-. 9. The issues raised for consideration of the Family Court are as follows: “1. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent has subjected him mental cruelty as alleged by him? 2. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent has deserved him without any reasonable cause or excuse for a continuous period of more than two years immediately before presenting the present petition? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the decree for divorce? 4. What order and decree?” 10. The trial Court answered the issue nos. 1 to 3 in affirmation and granted decree of divorce in favour of the respondent. We could notice that in examination-in-chief all these factual aspects have been narrated by the respondent wherein he has pleaded cruelty and desertion. He substantiated his version with the documentary evidences, asserted the aspect of cruelty and desertion. Ample opportunities though were made available to the appellant, this specific version imputing against the appellant could not be assailed in the cross-examination. In absence of any challenge to the version of the respondent and the same not having been controverted, adverse inference is available under the law and thereby the Court has held cruelty and desertion to have been proved, resulting into the decree of divorce. 11. We notice that the appellant has instructed the learned advocate Ms. Datta, in wake of the subsequent development in the life of the respondent who has been living in the live-in relationship for more than five years and a child is also begotten out of the said relationship. It is virtually impossible for her to join the respondent back. Because of stark poverty at Uttar Pradesh where she resides with her parents, she is unable to pursue the litigation. It is virtually impossible for her to join the respondent back. Because of stark poverty at Uttar Pradesh where she resides with her parents, she is unable to pursue the litigation. She has been made to understand of her entitlement of qualitative legal aid, but, it is understandable that as she belongs to the State of Uttar Pradesh and already once experienced passing of decree on account of her not having been represented effectively due to her personal absence, she is not desirable to proceed with this matter. It is not being disputed that there is absolutely no possibility of the parties to be united, with the commitment with the third party of the respondent and therefore, request is made to make an arrangement for the permanent alimony rather than disturbing operative portion of the judgment of the grant of decree of divorce in favour of the respondent. 12. Without endorsing to the reasons and the grounds of desertion and cruelty for want of any challenge to the allegation of desertion in the cross-examination, as there is no resistance on the part of the appellant and when without dissolution of marriage also the respondent had chosen to move on in the life by his live-in relationship and a child having begotten out of the said relationship, no purpose is to be served reuniting both of them and hence we chose to continue the decree of divorce. The marriage solemnized on dated 19.02.2009 is dissolved, without endorsing to the findings of cruelty and desertion. Parties have virtually decided that it would be next to impossible for them to live together. 13. We also noticed that the Court while passing the decree the Court concerned had chosen not to make any arrangement for an amount of permanent alimony. 14. This amount of permanent alimony is basically to ensure that there is financial security for the wife and she is not forced to turn a destitute that this provision has been incorporated in the law. 14. This amount of permanent alimony is basically to ensure that there is financial security for the wife and she is not forced to turn a destitute that this provision has been incorporated in the law. Hence on the ground of non grant of permanent alimony by the trial Court at the time of deciding the decree of divorce and also noticing the fact that she has forgone all her rights and her own belongings given by her father at the time of the marriage, including the motorbike (not disputed by the respondent) and also the pendency of outstanding dues of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,05,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Five Thousand only). In our opinion, the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) shall sub-serve the purpose as in essence the amount of permanent alimony shall be Rs. 3,05,000/- we have calculated Rs. 1,05,000/- additionaly and with the round figure, the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) in all is to be granted in favour of appellant. Let this amount be deposited with the Registry of this Court within a period of six weeks. On deposit of the aforesaid amount, Registry is directed to transmit the same through RTGS to the account of appellant, details of which are as under: Account No. 45300210414702 Bank: Union Bank of India, Saat Railway Station Branch, Sadat, Gazipur, Uttar Pradesh. If the amount is not paid as stipulated by the respondent, decree of dissolution of marriage shall not come into effect. 15. With this, present First Appeal stands disposed of. In view of the disposal of the First Appeal, Civil Application also stands disposed of.