JUDGMENT : This appeal filed under Section 28(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the wife, challenge is confined only to the quantum of permanent alimony granted by the trial Court while allowing the petition filed by the husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Act granting a decree of divorce. 2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court. 3. FACTS: The marriage of petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 05.03.2001 at Kollegal. However, respondent had ran away from the reception. Later on they had returned to the matrimonial home. Within half an hour, the respondent went to the bathroom and had consumed tablets. She had disclosed that she was suffering from stomach pain and was unfit for marriage or to have children. On the next day, she was crying with stomach ache and therefore, the petitioner had to take her to parent's house and requested them to get her medical care. Even though the petitioner tried to get her medical care, the same did not yield any result. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent had not been consummated. Even though panchayaths were held, the respondent did not cooperate and ultimately, she continued to stay in her parents house. As on the date of filing the petition, respondent had deserted the petitioner for six years. The conduct of the respondent in depriving the petitioner of matrimonial cohabitation amounts to cruelty. In the absence of any other alternative, he has filed this petition. 4. Earlier, the petitioner had filed M.C.No.2/2004 for divorce. However, though the respondent filed objections, later on she came forward to join the petitioner and lead a happy married life. Therefore, the petitioner got the petition closed on 21.09.2005. However, the respondent did not obey the Court order. On the other hand, at the instigation of her parents, she filed a false complaint against the petitioner and his family members. For no fault of his, the petitioner was arrested and detained in jail. The respondent also gave false complaint to the Education Department where the petitioner was working. Therefore, he was suspended and later on, his suspension was revoked. Respondent also filed Crl.Misc.54/2005 for maintenance. In the light of these, petitioner had sought a decree of divorce. 5. For no fault of his, the petitioner was arrested and detained in jail. The respondent also gave false complaint to the Education Department where the petitioner was working. Therefore, he was suspended and later on, his suspension was revoked. Respondent also filed Crl.Misc.54/2005 for maintenance. In the light of these, petitioner had sought a decree of divorce. 5. After due service of notice, the respondent appeared through counsel and filed written statement admitting the fact that their marriage was solemnized on 05.03.2001 at Kollegal. However, she had denied that she walked out of the reception and did not cooperate with the petitioner to consummate the marriage. However, she admits that the marriage is not consummated. The respondent denied that she told the petitioner that she is suffering from stomach ache and is not able to bare children. The filing of the petition in M.C.No.2/2004 by the petitioner and withdrawal of the same by way of joint memo dated 21.09.2005 was also admitted. 6. The respondent has alleged that the marriage was performed by giving dowry in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, watch, gold ornaments and clothes worth Rs.1,25,000/- and cash of Rs.30,000/-, to enable the petitioner to get a government job. She has also alleged that after the 'Beegara oota' held at the petitioner's place, he left the respondent to her parent's house and did not take her back. It is the petitioner who had refused to consummate the marriage saying that he is not willing to lead a marital life. After M.C.No.2/2004 was filed by the petitioner, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. To avoid payment of maintenance, petitioner withdrew M.C.No.2/2004. He took her to the matrimonial home for a period of seven days. However, during this period, the respondent was harassed and ill treated by the petitioner and his family members and therefore, she had filed a complaint in Cr.No.97/2005. Since then she has been living in her parental home. 7. Based on the pleadings, the trial court has framed issues. 8. Enquiry was held, wherein three witnesses were examined on behalf of petitioner including the petitioner as PWs-1 to 3 and Ex.P1 to 10 were marked. 9. Respondent was deposed as RW-1. 10. Vide the impugned judgment and decree, the trial court has allowed the petition granting decree of divorce. Based on the pleadings, the trial court has framed issues. 8. Enquiry was held, wherein three witnesses were examined on behalf of petitioner including the petitioner as PWs-1 to 3 and Ex.P1 to 10 were marked. 9. Respondent was deposed as RW-1. 10. Vide the impugned judgment and decree, the trial court has allowed the petition granting decree of divorce. It has directed the petitioner to pay permanent alimony in a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to the respondent. 11. The present appeal filed under Section 28 (1) of the Act, respondent has confined her challenge in respect of the judgment and decree with regard to grant of permanent alimony, contending that it is on the lower side and that she is not having any source of income for her livelihood. She is entirely dependent on her parents who are very poor. Now the father of the respondent is also no more. Since the petitioner is working as a music teacher, he is earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. and he is also getting rental income of Rs.4,000/-p.m. Taking into consideration these aspects, the compensation may be enhanced adequately. 12. Heard arguments and perused the records. 13. Since the respondent has not challenged the judgment and decree insofar as it grants decree of divorce, the same has attained finality. The limited question which is required to be decided in this appeal is whether the permanent alimony granted is inadequate and on the lower side and thus, requires enhancement. 14. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that at present the petitioner is drawing salary to the extent of Rs.40,000/-p.m. The marriage was performed on 05.03.2001. Since, the marriage 21 years have elapsed. There is no allegation to the effect that either of the parties have remarried. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the respondent is either employed or having any source of income. 15. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid aspects, we are of the considered opinion that it would be reasonable to enhance the permanent alimony to Rs.10,00,000/-. To aforesaid extent, the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be modified and accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal filed by respondent/wife is allowed. (ii) The permanent alimony is enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/- as against Rs.1,25,000/- granted by the trial Court. To aforesaid extent, the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be modified and accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal filed by respondent/wife is allowed. (ii) The permanent alimony is enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/- as against Rs.1,25,000/- granted by the trial Court. (iii) The registry is directed to transmit the trial Court record along with copy of this judgment.