ORDER : Anuradha Shukla, J. Both these first appeals arise out of a common judgment and decree passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Sagar on 23.11.2021 deciding two matrimonial cases RCSHM No.54/2002 and RCSHM No.133/1996. Parties are common in both these first appeals and appellant is assailing both of them only in limited aspects of judgment and decree which relate to awarding Rs.30 Lacs as permanent alimony to respondent wife and on the direction of paying Rs.4 Lacs to her as market value of her stree dhan. 2. Admitted facts relevant for the decision of these first appeals are that a divorce petition under RCSHM No.54/2002 was filed by appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'husband') on the grounds of cruelty and desertion in the year 1995. In another matrimonial case filed as RCSHM No.133/1996 respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'wife') filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Under the impugned judgment, petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by wife was dismissed and the divorce petition filed by the respondent was allowed with supplemental reliefs in favour of wife regarding payment of permanent alimony and market value of her "stree dhan". It may also be mentioned here that two separate first appeals were filed by wife registered as First Appeal Nos.4/2022 and 5/2022 assailing the divorce decree and quantum of market value of "stree dhan", but both these appeals stand dismissed vide order dated 13.08.2025. 3. Factual aspects of the case are that parties were married on 08.07.1989 and lived together at Satna, Gaziabad, Chhatarpur and Raipur, but their relationship grew sour in the year 1990 itself. Admittedly, parties were blessed with twins, a baby boy and a baby girl, in September, 1990, but things did not improve even thereafter. In March 1996 husband filed a divorce petition, and thereafter in same year a report was lodged by wife under Section 498-A of IPC . Besides other legal cases instituted between them, an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act too was filed bywife in the year 1996. Since dismissal of application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act and grant of divorce decree in favour of husband are not under challenge in present appeals, therefore, we do not find it useful to go any deeper into those facts which have driven the parties to this miserable state of relationship. Since dismissal of application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act and grant of divorce decree in favour of husband are not under challenge in present appeals, therefore, we do not find it useful to go any deeper into those facts which have driven the parties to this miserable state of relationship. The limited question involved here requires analysis on "whether the family Court was justified in allowing payment of permanent alimony to the tune of Rs.30 Lacs and also market value of "stree dhan" assessing it at Rs.4 Lacs". 4. From paragraph No.23 of impugned judgment it is reflected that an application under Section 125 of Hindu Marriage Act was filed by wife requesting payment of 1/3rd part of the salary of husband as permanent alimony but it was opposed by husband claiming that wife having earning, is competent to maintain herself and therefore, she does not deserve any permanent alimony. The trial Court considered rival arguments in paragraph No.197 onwards of the impugned judgment under issue No.4. It was of the opinion that though wife was claiming monthly maintenance amount, but her intention is to obtain a relief that operates even after the disposal of main petition and therefore, her request falls within the ambit of permanent alimony, though in the form of monthly maintenance. The family Court considered income tax return of husband for the year 2016-2017 and appreciating the overall status of parties, their liabilities and also the prevailing social and physical conditions directed that husband shall pay Rs.30 Lacs as permanent alimony to wife. 5. In F.A. No.388/2022 appellant/husband is assailing this grant of permanent alimony. His contention is that wife being an active practicing Law Advocate in District Court, Sagar for last 30 years and having substantial income from this profession, is financially competent to support herself. He has further claimed that wife has significant assets including FTR, kisan vikas patra and national saving certificates and therefore, she should not be given any financial aid in the form of permanent alimony. According to him, an amount of Rs.30 Lacs awarded against permanent alimony is exorbitant and has been allowed in complete disregard of evidence available on record. Therefore, F.A. No.388/2022 has been filed for seeking a decree to set-aside the direction regarding payment of Rs.30 Lacs as permanent alimony. 6. According to him, an amount of Rs.30 Lacs awarded against permanent alimony is exorbitant and has been allowed in complete disregard of evidence available on record. Therefore, F.A. No.388/2022 has been filed for seeking a decree to set-aside the direction regarding payment of Rs.30 Lacs as permanent alimony. 6. At the time of final arguments, the regular counsel failed to appear and argue on behalf of respondent/wife and the junior counsel appearing on her behalf intimated this Court that he has not been given any instructions to argue this case. Thus, counsel for appellant alone was heard on merits. 7. On behalf of appellant/husband learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to documents of Ex.D/68 and Ex.D/69, which establish without any freckle of doubt that respondent/wife is an Advocate enrolled in District Bar Association, Sagar since 2007. Respondent/wife has not denied her qualification as an advocate or this enrollment, but her claim since outset is that she does not earn any significant income from this profession. Admittedly, monthly maintenance was allowed in her favour under an application of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and even in subsequent litigations she was allowed maintenance under the provision of Hindu Marriage Act. These repeated orders of maintenance reflect that at no stage of this continuous and prolonged litigation, respondent/wife was found to have sufficient means to maintain herself. 8. In the facts of the case, it is not denied that respondent-wife is engaged in the profession of advocacy since long, but no reliable evidence was placed on record to show that she was earning substantially from this profession. Obtaining a professional degree and engaging in a profession do not necessarily guarantee success in that profession, hence, if the fact of earning adequate income from that profession is under challenge, it would require distinct enquiry and proof. We are not oblivious to the fact that in a profession of litigation investing long period is not a key to success and even an Advocate for years fails to establish as a successful lawyer and earn significantly. In para 80 of her cross-examination, respondent-wife examined as D.W.2 has claimed that she has not appeared in a singular case since she started practice in Sagar though her registration in District Bar Sagar is of the year 2007. In para 80 of her cross-examination, respondent-wife examined as D.W.2 has claimed that she has not appeared in a singular case since she started practice in Sagar though her registration in District Bar Sagar is of the year 2007. If wife was concealing any material facts under this statement or was telling blatant lies, then husband could have brought on record the Vakalatnamas signed and filed by her in cases but we do not have any such evidence either, to confront the truth of statement made by her about her trifling income and a low profile profession. 9. Appellant-husband has placed reliance on some investment made in the name of respondent-wife but we cannot ignore the fact that she has been receiving maintenance from husband for a long time and also that she has stayed in this period with her parents, therefore, if she was able to make any savings and invest them for her future security, it would not suggest that her financial condition is comfortable and she can thrive on her own. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Reema Salkan Vs. Sumer Singh Salkan (2019) 12 SCC 303 while relying on the earlier judgment of Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena: (2015) 6 SCC 353 has held that: “ Wife is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of such nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created where under she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life “dust unto dust”. It is totally impermissible.” 11. On the aforesaid legal and factual aspects of the case, the family Court has committed no error in allowing the permanent alimony in favour of respondent-wife while granting a decree of divorce. It is totally impermissible.” 11. On the aforesaid legal and factual aspects of the case, the family Court has committed no error in allowing the permanent alimony in favour of respondent-wife while granting a decree of divorce. Though the quantum of this permanent alimony is under challenge in F.A. No. 388/2022 but we cannot ignore that appellant-husband has just retired from a very senior post of Class-I Officer, their son is a Class-I Officer in Central Government Services, and their daughter holds a B.Tech. degree. These facts have reflections upon the status of the parties and considering them, the family Court allowed Rs.30.0 Lacs as permanent alimony. In these circumstances, we do not find any justification for interference in the directions given so far as regarding payment of Rs.30.0 Lacs as permanent alimony to respondent- wife. Accordingly, First Appeal No. 388/2022 being found to be of no substance is dismissed. 12. In First Appeal No. 389/2022, appellant-husband has grievance with the direction of payment of Rs.4.0 Lacs to respondent-wife. He is aggrieved not only about the quantum but also on the fact that this amount has been described in the judgment as "dowry given to husband". This part of judgment and decree has addressed the request made by respondent-wife in her petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights. The relief column of that petition makes a statement that items mentioned in schedule “?" are the “stree-dhan” of respondent-wife but appellant/husband has deprived her of all of these items and falsely claims them to be his own property. The Family Court has allowed the refund of value of these items to respondent-wife under the impugned part of judgment. The learned senior counsel for the appellant-husband has insisted that the family Court was in error in allowing this relief, but we are not in agreement with this submission. 13. Its a Hindu custom, that parents and relatives generally give gifts to bride on the occasion of her marriage, which is considered as her “stree-dhan” and in the present case also the respondent-wife would have been given “stree- dhan” by relatives of both the sides. 13. Its a Hindu custom, that parents and relatives generally give gifts to bride on the occasion of her marriage, which is considered as her “stree-dhan” and in the present case also the respondent-wife would have been given “stree- dhan” by relatives of both the sides. In para No. 196 of the judgment, while dealing with this issue, we find that only on the basis of oral testimony, the trial Court has reached to the conclusion that valuable gifts of worth Rs.4.0 Lacs were given to the respondent-wife at the time of marriage, for which she should be compensated. There is complete silence in the entire judgment about the details and the individual value of these items and also on how and when were they given in the custody of appellant husband. The judgment is also silent on the contentions made by husband under which he has claimed that wife had already taken away the entire stree-dhan along with her. Thus,we may say that approach of trial Court was missing depth in dealing with this issue. We may refer here to the testimony of respondent-wife (D.W.1) who has in para no.2 of her examination-in-chief has categorically stated that her entire jewelry was taken by her mother-in-law on the pretext of keeping it in safe custody and she has further deposed that after first "Vida" she was never given this jewelry back. According to her, jewelry weighed 15 tolas of gold. Interestingly, a series of written complaints were made by her to police regarding her harassment and they are Exs.D-5 to D-7 but in none of these complaints made in the year 1996, she has spoken a word about this act of criminal breach of trust. Her relationship with appellant-husband had reached to a break-up point prior to making of these complaints, as a divorce notice was already received by her, still she made no allegation about the crime of criminal breach of trust nor requested for return of her jewelry. 14. The statements of respondent-wife suggest that the first "Vida" ceremony was held in the year 1989. 14. The statements of respondent-wife suggest that the first "Vida" ceremony was held in the year 1989. She and her father both while examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 respectively have asserted that in the year 1991 when respondent- wife was already in her parental house in Sagar, appellant-husband came there and asked his father-in-law to get the purity of jewelry tested through a goldsmith and they both have further claimed that conceding to this demand of appellant, the purity of jewelry was got so verified. Strangely, they both are silent on the fact that jewelry was brought to Sagar by appellant and it was already not there in the possession of respondent-wife. Had the jewelry been in possession of appellant-husband or his family members in 1991, they would have got its purity verified in Chhatarpur itself, the place where they resided. Both these witnesses are also silent on who retained custody ofjewelry after this verification. They do not claim that the jewelry was ever handed back to appellant-husband after this purity test. This analysis of evidence makes it clear that the jewelry under stree-dhan of respondent-wife remained with her when the parties finally separated. So far as other items gifted as stree-dhan like clothes, utensils and other house-hold utilities, we have no hesitation to hold that almost after 35 years of marriage, the family Court has made no mistake in allowing a payment of Rs.4.0 Lacs against those other items of “stree-dhan”. 15. The trial court while directing the payment of Rs.4.0 Lacs to the respondent-wife has used the nomenclature of "dowry" for items against which direction for payment has been made. Appellant has serious objections to it. Admittedly the criminal case regarding demand of dowry and harassment is still pending between the parties. Family Court has made reference to Exhibit Nos. D/2 and D/31 about said demand, but this Bench is not in concurrence with the finding of the trial Court about holding these items as given in dowry to appellant-husband. Anything given as present at the time of marriage to the bride, without there being any demand made in that behalf does not fall within the ambit of dowry and unquestionably this issue is still to be examined, whether these items were given on demand made by appellant-husband or his family members or were given as gifts without their being any demand. In this backdrop, we find substance in the arguments made by learned senior counsel for appellant-husband that the trial Court was not correct in describing the items mentioned in schedule “?" a as dowry items. Accordingly, for the purpose of deciding this appeal, said items shall be considered as “stree-dhan” of respondent-wife and nothing beyond that. 16. On the basis of foregoing discussion, F.A. No. 389/2022 is disposed of with the direction that the appellant-husband shall pay Rs.4.0 Lacs to respondent-wife as market value of “stree-dhan” given to her at the time of marriage. 17. Consequently, F.A. No. 388/2022 is dismissed in its entirety, while F.A. No. 389/2022 is disposed of with partial modification by striking down the observation made by the trial Court that items mentioned in schedule “?" were "dowry items given to the appellant", however, the remaining direction regarding payment of market value of “stree-dhan” to respondent-wife is upheld. 18. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of.