JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Sri SSR. Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Dr. C.S. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, challenging the order dated 17.12.2012 passed in F.C.O.P.No.750 of 2007 by the learned Family Court at Hyderabad. 3. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed on 14.02.1992 according to Hindu rights and customs. It is as an arranged marriage. They were blessed with a son on 26.04.2001. Thereafter, disputes arose between them. The respondent herein filed a petition herein under Section 13 (1)(ia) and Sections 25 & 26 of Hindu Marriage Act against the appellant, seeking dissolution of marriage and for permanent alimony of Rs.25,00,000/-. 4. He had contended that the appellant herein is a medical practitioner and he is Nephrologist. He used to stay in Bangladesh at the time of filing the said O.P. He was not competent to give birth to the child, as his sperm count is very low, therefore, the respondent herein has taken treatment i.e., IVF. She was blessed with a son on 26.04.2001. The respondent used to maintain illicit relationship with nurse etc, thus the appellant herein subjected the respondent herein to cruelty. He did not take care of the boy. On the said grounds, the respondent sought dissolution of marriage and also permanent alimony of Rs.25,00,000/-. 5. The appellant herein opposed the said petition, contending, that she is also a medical practitioner and he never harassed her. In fact, she falsely implicated him in a criminal case, more particularly for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. She is also a medical practitioner and she was employed before marriage itself. Therefore, she is not entitled to any permanent alimony. 6. Vide impugned order, dated 17.12.2012 passed in F.C.O.P.No.750 of 2007, the learned Family Court at Hyderabad, had granted dissolution of marriage, considering the fact, the appellant herein also gave consent for decree of divorce. On consideration of the said fact, that the boy is with the respondent/wife and that the appellant herein is earning more money, the learned Family Court awarded an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- towards permanent alimony to the respondent herein. 7. To prove the said claim, the respondent herein examined herself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to P23. On consideration of the said fact, that the boy is with the respondent/wife and that the appellant herein is earning more money, the learned Family Court awarded an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- towards permanent alimony to the respondent herein. 7. To prove the said claim, the respondent herein examined herself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to P23. To disprove the same, the appellant herein examined as RW1 and marked Ex.R1 to R66. On consideration of evidence, both oral and documentary, vide impugned order, dated 21.08.2014, the learned Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, had granted decree of divorce and awarded an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- towards permanent alimony to the respondent herein. 8. The appellant herein filed the present appeal, challenging the impugned order, to an extent of awarding the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- towards permanent alimony to the respondent herein. 9. Vide order, dated 02.01.2014, this Court had granted interim suspension of the impugned order on the condition of the appellant herein depositing of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and on such deposit, this Court granted liberty to the respondent herein to withdraw the said amount. It is a specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had already deposited the said amount in compliance with the same and the respondent has withdrawn the said amount. The said fact is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that now the dispute is only with regard to balance of Rs.15,00,000/-. 10. Sri S.S.R. Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the respondent is also a medical practitioner and is employed before the marriage itself. There is a sufficient means to maintain herself. She has implicated the appellant herein in a criminal case. Therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. He further submitted that she has taken interim custody of the boy and the appellant had paid certain amount to the respondent and to the boy for their maintenance. Therefore, without considering the fact, the learned Family Court awarded an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the respondent towards permanent alimony. He had also placed reliance on the Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, contending that without considering the said aspects, on which, the respondent is entitled for maintenance, where the learned Family court had awarded the said amount of Rs.29,00,000/-. He had also placed reliance on the interim order, dated 26.12.2014 passed by this Court. He had also placed reliance on the Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, contending that without considering the said aspects, on which, the respondent is entitled for maintenance, where the learned Family court had awarded the said amount of Rs.29,00,000/-. He had also placed reliance on the interim order, dated 26.12.2014 passed by this Court. Vide the said order, learned Family Court had granted visitation rights to the appellant herein. 11. He had also placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal & others, 1978 AIR (SC) 1807 in S.L.P.No.1268 of 1977, Savitaben Somabhai Vhtiya v. State of Gujara & Others , [ 2005 (3) SCC 636 ] in Criminal Appeal No.399 of 2005, Ravi Kumar v. Julmi Devi , [ 2007 (11) SCC 75 ] in Civil Appeal No.1868 of 2007 and Bipinchandra Jaisinghbai Shah v. Prabhawati , [1957 AIR (SC) 176] in Civil Appeal No.247 of 1953. 12. Whereas, Sri Dr.C.S. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the respondent would contended that the appellant herein is a Nephrologist and he is earning more money. He had suppressed the fact that he is incompetent in giving birth to a child. Therefore, the respondent had taken treatment i.e., IVF method and was blessed with a male child on 24.06.2001. The appellant never took care of the welfare of the child. Now he is aged bout 24 years old. On consideration of the said aspects only, the learned Family Court had awarded the said amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the respondent towards maintenance and there is no error in it. 13. The appellant herein had filed Ex.A5/copy of FIR in Cr.No.809 of 2007, as to show that the respondent herein is implicated in a criminal case. Ex.A6/copy of Certificate issued by the Yashoda Hospital, as to show that the respondent was employed prior to the marriage. Ex.A10, a copy of statement of account of Andhra Bank. Respondent herein had also filed Ex.R1/bunch of pay slips and account of Andhra Bank Ex.R18/book of Canara Bank of the respondent/wife. He had also filed ITR of the respondent, to show that she is in a position to maintain herself. 14. As discussed supra, the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed on 14.02.1992 and they were blessed with a male child on 26.04.2001, the facts are not disputed. He had also filed ITR of the respondent, to show that she is in a position to maintain herself. 14. As discussed supra, the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed on 14.02.1992 and they were blessed with a male child on 26.04.2001, the facts are not disputed. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein gave consent for a decree of divorce. On consideration of the said fact and recording, the said consent, in paragraph 22, of the learned Family Court gave a specific finding that the appellant also gave a consent for decree of divorce. Hence, the respondent being a legally wedded wife of the appellant herein is entitled for decree of divorce. There is also a finding in the said para though she is having sufficient capacity to lead her life, but in view of the circumstances, as the respondent is entitled for decree of divorce, as a wife, the respondent herein is entitled for permanent alimony from the appellant/husband and the appellant herein cannot deny the liability of payment of permanent alimony to the respondent herein. There is also a finding with regard to the maintenance of the child in paragraph No.25. 15. As discussed supra, the respondent herein herself maintained the child. He is now 24 years old. He became major. 16. Though the appellant herein contended that he has paid certain amount to the respondent to maintain herself and the boy, he had not filed any proofs. There is a specific finding with regard to the same in paragraph No.25 of the impugned order. There is no dispute that he had filed several documents to show that the respondent herein is a medical practitioner and she was employed before marriage and she was in a position to maintain herself, but he failed to file any document to show that he had paid certain amount for maintenance to the respondent herein and the boy. The respondent being the medical practitioner maintained boy for 24 years. Now, he became a major. 17. Being a father of the child, it is the bound duty of the appellant herein to maintain the child. In the present case, he has not filed any document or produced any evidence to show that he had maintained the child. The respondent being the medical practitioner maintained boy for 24 years. Now, he became a major. 17. Being a father of the child, it is the bound duty of the appellant herein to maintain the child. In the present case, he has not filed any document or produced any evidence to show that he had maintained the child. On consideration of the said aspects only, the learned Family Court awarded an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the respondent herein towards permanent alimony. 18. Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with permanent alimony and maintenance and it is relevant. It is extracted below:- “The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 b. SECTION 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 of 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 the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just.” 19. In the said provision, there is a specific mention that the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case are considered by the learned Family Court while deciding the permanent alimony. As discussed supra, in the present case, there is no dispute with regard to date of birth of the child i.e., 26.04.2001. The appellant herein failed to file any evidence or to produce any evidence to show that he had maintained child. Being a father it is the bound duty to maintain the child, in pursuance, he failed to maintain the child. Therefore, on consideration of the said aspects, more particularly Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the learned Family Court awarded Rs.20,00,000/- to the respondent herein towards permanent alimony. 20. In the case of Dr. Aneel Goud v. N.V. Hanumantha Rao , 2015 (1) ALT 176 rendered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, both the parties therein are medical practitioners. In the said case, the conduct of the petitioner-wife therein is abominable. Therefore, on consideration of the conduct of the wife therein and also the fact that she is also a medical practitioner and was in a position to maintain herself, the Division Bench of this Court had held that she is not entitled for any amount towards permanent alimony from the respondent-husband therein. But, in the present case, it is slightly different, they were blessed with a son on 26.04.2001. Admittedly, the respondent herein maintained him to 24 years. Therefore, she is entitled for permanent alimony. 21. As per the law laid down in Dr. Aneel Goud’s case, the facts in this case are slightly different. There is no consideration of the present case, they have a son born on 26.04.2001. It is the bound duty of the appellant to maintain him. Therefore, in the aforesaid judgment relied by the learned counsel for the appellant are slightly different to the facts of the present case. 22. As discussed supra, on consideration of the evidence, both oral and documentary, vide impugned order, dated 17.12.2012, the learned Family Court rightly awarded an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the respondent towards permanent alimony. It is a reasoned order. The appellant herein had failed to make out any case to interfere with the said order. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 23. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. It is a reasoned order. The appellant herein had failed to make out any case to interfere with the said order. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 23. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.