JUDGMENT Arindam Sinha, J. Mrs. Patnaik, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-wife and submits, her client has preferred appeal from judgment dated 28th November, 2017 made by the family Court dissolving the marriage and directing permanent alimony at ₹7,50,000/-. Respondent-husband has also preferred appeal (MATA no.43 of 2018) against quantum of permanent alimony directed by the judgment. Mr. Sahoo, learned advocate appears on behalf of the husband. 2. Mrs. Patnaik submits, there was lack of cogent evidence to prove either cruelty or unsoundness of mind of incurable nature. None of the two grounds were proved before the family Court. The learned Judge failed to appreciate and thereby erred in dissolving the marriage. 3. She draws attention to deposition dated 26th August, 2015 of respondent-husband in cross-examination. We reproduced below a passage from paragraph 2 therein. "I returned to my house from Kolkata to my native village 15 days after I had gone there after taking leave from my service place. After marriage till I went to Kolkata I along with the O.P were living peacefully by cooperating to each other. During the period of my stay at Kolkata, I was informed by my parents that the O.P used to wake up late at about 9 O' Clock and was unwilling to follow the family custom and tradition and was unwilling to do household works and prepare food etc." (emphasis supplied) She submits, the parties stayed with each other as husband and wife for total of a very brief period, of approximately 5 and 1/2 months. At the time of marriage, respondent-husband was working in Kharagpur in West Bengal. It would appear from above quoted deposition that there was no problem for period of the two weeks her client was with him. It is only when she was left with her parents-in-law that some trivial complaints were made against her. Those do not amount to cruelty. She points out further from the deposition that respondent-husband had said he had not treated or consulted with any doctor relating to the abnormality of her client during the three days when he visited his house from Kolkata. 4. Those do not amount to cruelty. She points out further from the deposition that respondent-husband had said he had not treated or consulted with any doctor relating to the abnormality of her client during the three days when he visited his house from Kolkata. 4. She relies on clause (iii) under sub-section (1) of section 13 in Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to submit, there is no finding in impugned judgment as based on evidence that her client is incurably of unsound mind or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that respondent-husband cannot be expected to live with her. She reiterates, time spent together was approximately 5 and 1/2 months. She relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 , paragraph 101 and illustrations thereunder to submit, there is no evidence on record to bring the case as within any of the illustrations. 5. Mr. Sahoo submits, no interference is warranted with impugned judgment. There have been findings based on the evidence and on adverse presumption against appellant-wife for not presenting herself to be examined. On his client's application, his father-in-law was appointed as guardian of appellant-husband to contest the case for protecting her interest. 6. We have perused impugned judgment. The findings have been given on several points. Point no.1 is on cruelty. Apart from allegations made against appellant-wife as submitted by Mrs. Patnaik we notice, inter alia, a further allegation made by respondent-husband in his evidence-in-chief, of her threatening that if anybody tried to persuade her to do the household work she would administer poison in the food. The family Court noted these allegations and that nothing could be elicited in cross-examination from respondent-husband to discredit him. It also appears appellant-wife did not offer herself to be examined in the proceeding. 7. We also notice, the petition for dissolution of marriage was filed by the husband against respondent-wife describing her to be a person of unsound mind. The description included that she is to be represented by her father. Appellant-wife had filed application under order VII rule 11(d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for rejection of the petition on ground it is barred by law. Respondent-husband had also, as aforesaid, applied for appointment of the father as her guardian. The description included that she is to be represented by her father. Appellant-wife had filed application under order VII rule 11(d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for rejection of the petition on ground it is barred by law. Respondent-husband had also, as aforesaid, applied for appointment of the father as her guardian. It appears from order-sheet, by order dated 7th January, 2014, on behalf of appellant-wife it was urged that non-joinder of the father as a party was fatal to the petition, hence barred by law. By said order both the petitions were disposed of in allowing appellant-wife to be represented by her father. 8. Appellant-wife had challenged said order dated 7th January, 2014 in revision. On 31st July, 2014 there was order made in the revision directing enquiry. The family Court, in compliance, endeavoured to make inquiry but appellant-wife did not present herself or participate therein. Hence, the inquiry was confined to respondent-husband, who had in the meantime obtained documentary evidence by applying under Right to Information Act, 2005, regarding appellant-wife having been treated by psychiatrist in year 2013, after separation. We reproduce below a passage from said order dated 15th December, 2014 on remand, pursuant to direction for inquiry made by the High Court. "During course of enquiry, the statement of the petitioner Sarada Prasad Kar was recorded, who has given out that the respondent (Iti Satpathy @ Kar) was insane prior to her marriage with him and the said fact was suppressed and that about 1 & 1/2 months after the marriage, they noticed the abnormal behavior of the respondent while she was in their house and that on being asked, she told him that while she was studding in 1st year B.A in Salipur College she was suffering from insanity and therefore, she had under gone treatment under Dr. Kailash Chandra Nayak, of Cuttack who is a psychiatrist at Saikalinga Seba Sadan, Cuttack. He has further stated that he has obtained the information relating to the treatment of Iti Satpathy through Public Information Officer-Cum-A.D.M.O., and the Proprietor of Saikalinga Seba Sadan, Cuttack, had given information relating to treatment of Iti Satpathy vide Sl. No 14/1859 dated 11.02.2013 along with Xerox copy of discharge certificate and copy of the patient admission register. According to the petitioner, since the respondent Iti Satpathy @ Kar is insane her father should be appointed as her guardian in this case. No 14/1859 dated 11.02.2013 along with Xerox copy of discharge certificate and copy of the patient admission register. According to the petitioner, since the respondent Iti Satpathy @ Kar is insane her father should be appointed as her guardian in this case. Since the statement of the petitioner goes unchallenged and the documents as stated earlier reveal regarding the treatment of Iti Satpathy by Dr. Kailash Chandra Nayak, it can be safely held that she is insane. Therefore, it would be expedient to appoint her father as he guardian and to represent on her behalf in this C.P. Accordingly, the petition U/O.XXXII, rules 3 and 15 of C.P.C filed by the petitioner is allowed. The father of the respondent Rama Chandra Satpathy is appointed as a guardian for the respondent. The petitioner to take steps by 20.01.2015 for issuance of notice against the guardian of the respondent, Ram Chandra Satpathy." (emphasis supplied) 9. Rule 15 in order XXII makes applicable rules 1 to 14, except rule 2-A, to apply to persons of unsound mind. Respondent-husband had made the application and it was allowed. Father of appellant-wife was named her guardian, to represent her interest in the proceeding. It being one regarding marital discord, oral evidence adduced by appellant's father needs to be accordingly viewed since, he would not have had firsthand knowledge about what happened in the matrimonial home during the time appellant-wife resided with her husband and her parents-in-law. The family Court noted there was no allegation or step taken for redress in accordance with law regarding appellant-wife or her father having had lodged FIR or informed to the village gentries regarding she being tortured. There was no suggestion also given that appellant-wife was subjected to physical torture or was not allowed to visit her father's house. The Court went on to find, on reading of the depositions that entire assertion of respondent-husband regarding mental cruelty inflicted on him have gone unchallenged. From the hospital/nursing home, upon delivery of the child, appellant-wife went with her father and brother to her parental home. Yet they could not produce any medical evidence regarding the prenatal, delivery and postpartum stage of appellant-wife. Uncontroverted assertion by respondent-husband was that the father, brother and sister came to the nursing home on 15th May, 2011 and took appellant-wife and the baby with them saying they will keep with them for rest of their life. Yet they could not produce any medical evidence regarding the prenatal, delivery and postpartum stage of appellant-wife. Uncontroverted assertion by respondent-husband was that the father, brother and sister came to the nursing home on 15th May, 2011 and took appellant-wife and the baby with them saying they will keep with them for rest of their life. No evidence was adduced on side of appellant-wife to attribute sufficient reason as to why she went to her father's house from the nursing home instead of going with respondent-husband. So much so, respondenthusband was not invited for the 21st day ceremony of the daughter. Hence, the family Court concluded there was also denial of physical intimacy, on appellant-wife having removed herself from society of respondenthusband. All this amounted to mental cruelty. 10. The family Court also found the point regarding allegation of appellant-wife being of unsound mind as held to be proved. Adverse presumption was made against appellant-wife. There was discovery of suppression of facts regarding appellant-wife having been treated prior to marriage, not disclosed. Subsequent to delivery she again underwent treatment, which, as aforesaid, was discovered by respondent-husband by making application for information. Respondent-husband had filed the petition describing appellant-wife to be of unsound mind. In spite of direction made by the writ Court, appellant-wife did not participate to enable the family Court to cause enquiry regarding her mental condition. In the circumstances, the finding under clause (iii) on adverse presumption cannot be interfered with in appeal because, where there is evidence of appellant-wife having undergone some treatment, nothing was produced to show that it was an ailment of curable nature, for the ground to be held as not made out by respondent-husband. 11. Coming to the appeal of respondent-husband on quantum of permanent alimony directed at Rs. 7,50,000/-, we do not find any material as would appear from impugned order or the evidence to cause a downward revision thereof. Mrs. Patnaik submits without prejudice that quantum of permanent alimony is wholly insufficient. On query from Court Mr. Sahoo submits, at the material time his client was working as sales executive. Mrs. Patnaik submits, respondent-husband possesses Master in Business Administration (MBA) degree. 12. In view of observations made in impugned judgment that respondent-husband had not claimed even visitation right to see his daughter, we in exercise discretion under section 25 modify the direction in impugned judgment for permanent alimony, to be Rs. Mrs. Patnaik submits, respondent-husband possesses Master in Business Administration (MBA) degree. 12. In view of observations made in impugned judgment that respondent-husband had not claimed even visitation right to see his daughter, we in exercise discretion under section 25 modify the direction in impugned judgment for permanent alimony, to be Rs. 10,00,000/-. The modification is only confined to the amount. This is to be paid as directed by impugned judgment. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.