Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 797 (GUJ)

Vinay Surendra Pradhan v. Pooja Vinay Pradhan

2025-07-21

A.Y.KOGJE, N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

body2025
JUDGMENT : N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, J. 1. The husband, in these appeals, is challenging the order passed by the Family Court, by which the petition filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT has been allowed and also against the rejection of the husband’s counter claim for divorce, which had been sought for on the ground that the husband was inflicted with cruelty by the wife. 2. The parties are referred to by their marital status for the sale of brevity. 3. The facts, as could be ascertained from the pleadings, which have led to filing of the appeals, are as follows: - (1) The wife was working as a teacher in Ahmedabad and she got married on 27.5.2013. This was the first marriage of the wife and the second marriage of the husband. (2) The husband had, in fact, lost his first wife when she committed suicide and out of his earlier marriage, the husband had a son, who was aged about 13 years as on the date of his second marriage. (3) It is the case of the wife that pursuant to the marriage, she and her husband along with his son and her in-laws were staying in a three bedroom apartment which was owned by her husband. (4) Thereafter, there was difference of opinion, as result of which, she left for Ahmedabad in November 2013. (5) It is also borne out from the record that she did address email to her husband complaining about the fact that she was forced to share their bed along with his 13 years old son. (6) The wife states that on return to Mumbai to rejoin her matrimonial home, she found that she was required to live in a rented flat to which all her belongings had been shifted without her knowledge or consent as against the three bedroom apartment which was owned by her husband and in which she was residing with her husband earlier before she had left to Ahmedabad. (7) The record indicates that by the time, the wife returned from Ahmedabad in May 2014, the husband had in fact had transferred all the three properties that he owned i.e. two flats at Mumbai in favour of his son and other property in the name of his father. (7) The record indicates that by the time, the wife returned from Ahmedabad in May 2014, the husband had in fact had transferred all the three properties that he owned i.e. two flats at Mumbai in favour of his son and other property in the name of his father. (8) Differences cropped up thereafter, resulting in complaints being lodged by the husband to the Police about refusal of the wife to eat and also the wife lodging a complaint to the Police for offences under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. (9) The wife contends that she was sent to her parental home on the occasion of Rakshabandhan in July 2015 and thereafter, her husband did not come to take her back to Mumbai. (10) It is borne out from the record that on 9.9.2016, the wife had filed a complaint to Samtanagar Police Station regarding her intended visit to her husband’s house and expressing her apprehension that she could be exposed to violence and therefore be afforded protection. (11) The differences, which had cropped up from May 2014, did not subside and the husband proceeded to file a petition seeking for a divorce in Mumbai in the month of January 2017. This petition was filed on the allegations that the wife was guilty of inflicting cruelty on the husband. (12) On 5.5.2017, the wife filed a petition seeking for restitution of conjugal rights in the Family Court at Ahmedabad. (13) In this petition, she stated that she had initially stayed at her matrimonial house for about 5 months, during which time, she was harassed and she thereafter, left to her parental home and when she was at her parental house, her belongings were shifted from the apartment which was owned by her husband and had been moved to a rented premises. She stated that she was compelled to live separately in the rented premise though it had been agreed prior to their marriage that the couple would reside in their own house. She stated that shifting of her belongings to a rented premise was done in a fraudulent manner. She also alleged that her husband was guilty of starting quarrels at the instigation of his family members and he used to doubt about her character. She stated that shifting of her belongings to a rented premise was done in a fraudulent manner. She also alleged that her husband was guilty of starting quarrels at the instigation of his family members and he used to doubt about her character. She stated that the husband had installed CCTV cameras in all the rooms and with microphones in the bathrooms and she was subjected to continuous harassment. She also alleged that she was forced to live with limited resources and the husband would come home very late and, during holidays, he went to spent time with his family members, and she would have to stay alone. She alleged that the husband refused to live with her and that she should live at his wish, or else she could go to her parental house. (14) The wife stated that she was sent to her parental house in July 2015 on the occasion of Rakshabandhan and thereafter, the husband did not come to take her back and he, in fact, had deserted her. She also stated that when she along with her parents had gone to her husband’s house, she was not even allowed to enter the house for discussion. She stated that though she made efforts to contact her husband, he did not respond and kept himself away and failed to discharge his marital obligations. She also stated that the husband in fact filed a divorce petition in the Family Court at Bandra only to harass the wife. (15) On the filing of this petition, the husband proceeded to withdraw the the divorce petition which he had filed in Mumbai and he filed a detailed reply to the petition filed by the wife seeking for restitution. In this reply, he stated in the title that it was a Reply to the petition and that it was also a counter claim seeking for divorce. No specific prayer, however, was made in the prayer column of this reply for grant of decree of divorce. (16) The husband, in his reply, did admit the marriage, but thereafter, he proceeded to deny all the allegations made against him. He stated that it was the wife who had deserted him without any justifiable cause, and he had, therefore, filed a petition for divorce. He stated that the petition for restitution was filed as a defense against the claim for divorce made by the husband. He stated that it was the wife who had deserted him without any justifiable cause, and he had, therefore, filed a petition for divorce. He stated that the petition for restitution was filed as a defense against the claim for divorce made by the husband. He stated that he had made all efforts to save his marriage, even though he and his family members were insulted. He alleged that he and his family members were tortured, and false criminal complaint has been filed by the wife in which she had also made allegations against two minors. He stated that lodging of complaint against the minors, including one of his younger brother’s son, and his son from the earlier marriage, was nothing but cruelty. He also stated that the wife had included two other children of his sister and brother-in-law, who were staying far away and she had not even seen them for a very long time. It was contended that since the day of the marriage till 23.7.2015, they were only a married couple for namesake and the overall situation at home was never peaceful and the relationship had deteriorated when the wife had approached the police station and had lodged complaint against the family members. (17) The husband also contended that after he had married, he was paying EMIs of Rs.17,250/- per month for the home loan which his wife had taken for purchasing a flat in Ahmedabad and the said EMI amount was paid till July 2017. He stated that this apartment was fetching a rent of Rs.10,000/- per month and he was also transferring a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month to the wife’s ICICI bank account, which was being utilized to meet all her expenses. (18) He admitted that in the month of November 2013, the wife had left for her parental house in the background of fact that there were everyday quarrels at the house. He alleged that the wife basically wanted to have complete control over his salary and properties. He stated that he had informed his wife about taking the apartment on rent. He also admitted that he had installed the CCTV cameras and audio recorder in all rooms. He stated that he had only installed voice recorder in the washroom and these steps were taken since he had already suffered when he lost his first wife. He stated that he had informed his wife about taking the apartment on rent. He also admitted that he had installed the CCTV cameras and audio recorder in all rooms. He stated that he had only installed voice recorder in the washroom and these steps were taken since he had already suffered when he lost his first wife. He stated that he was forced to install the CCTV cameras and voice recorder in the rooms to protect his family and his minor son. He also stated that his in-laws were supporting his wife, and they had refused to cooperate and ensured that the attitude of his wife is changed. (19) The husband also contended that he had received a call from Chandkheda Police Station, Ahmedabad since his wife had filed a criminal complaint against him and his family members and he had informed the police that he would respond to their demand provided he was summoned in accordance with law. He stated that after this conversation, the police did not reach out to him. He also stated that thereafter he received a letter from Gujarat State Legal Service Authority and he appeared before the Authority and clearly told them that he could not reconcile with his wife in view of her attitude and her accusations that he had killed his first wife and she also expected a similar fate. (20) The husband, ultimately, stated that there was no possibility of the two of them staying together and, therefore, the marriage between them should be dissolved by granting a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. (21) The husband and wife adduced oral evidence by examining themselves. They also produced documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. (22) The Family Court on consideration of the pleas of both the sides as well as the evidence adduced before it, concluded that the wife had established that the husband had withdrawn from her society without any reasonable cause and therefore, she was entitled for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. (23) The Family Court also concluded that the husband had failed to establish that he had been subjected to cruelty and refused the counter-claim for grant of divorce raised by the husband. (24) The Family Court noticed that the assertions made by the husband and wife about their marriage and their differences were clearly forthcoming from the record. (23) The Family Court also concluded that the husband had failed to establish that he had been subjected to cruelty and refused the counter-claim for grant of divorce raised by the husband. (24) The Family Court noticed that the assertions made by the husband and wife about their marriage and their differences were clearly forthcoming from the record. It recorded a finding that after six months of marriage, when the wife had gone to her parental home, the husband had shifted to a rented premise despite owning three flats in his name, out of which, two were situated in Mumbai. The Family Court noticed that the husband had transferred these two flats in the name of his son and third property in the name of his father by way of a gift deed and all this was done without the knowledge of the wife. (25) The Family Court has recorded a finding that despite having his own house, the husband had voluntarily taken a two bedroom flat and had arranged to shift all their belongings to a rented premise without informing the wife. The Family Court also took a view that this act indicated malafides on the part of the husband and that he had compelled his wife to shift to a rented house, though he had his own properties. (26) The Family Court also recorded a finding that the husband himself had admitted in the cross-examination that he had installed CCTV cameras in the house, including in the bedrooms, and that he had also installed a microphone in the washroom area. The Family Court indicated that this act clearly established that the husband was having a suspicious nature, which amounted to inflicting cruelty on the wife. (27) The Family Court took note of the fact that the assertion that wife had sought to prevent the husband from sleeping with his son was untenable and it came to the conclusion that the defense of the husband that his son from the first marriage used to sleep on the same bed with his earlier wife, could not be believed having regard to the age of the son, who was aged about 12 years. (28) The Family Court also took note of the the admission on the part of the husband that he had not shown his willingness to bring his wife back and this itself indicated that he wanted to keep the wife away. The Family Court noticed that prior to their marriage, both the parties had arrived at a consensus that the wife would not conceive any child because the husband was already having a child out of his first marriage and this indicated that the wife had made an enormous sacrifice for the sake of her marriage with her husband and, therefore, the wife was entitled for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. (29) As regards the counter claim for divorce, the Family Court came to the conclusion that, the admission of the husband that he had installed CCTV cameras and audio recording equipment as a defensive measure, since his first wife had committed suicide, was untenable. The Family Court took the view that installation of CCTV cameras in the bedrooms and a microphone in the washroom exceeded the tolerable limit of doubting the wife’s chastity and such type of behaviour in fact amounted to inflicting of cruelty upon the wife. (30) The Family Court concluded that it was the husband who was the wrong doer and the grant of decree of divorce for a wrongdoer in the marriage would be contrary to law apart from being improper. (31) The Family Court, as already stated above, granted the decree of restitution of conjugal rights to the wife and rejected the claim of the husband for divorce, as a result of which these appeals are filed by the husband. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the husband made elaborate submissions and also filed his written arguments. His arguments were essentially to the effect that the wife was guilty of making false allegations against the husband and she had inflicted cruelty against him by lodging numerous complaints against him and his family members, including minors. He submitted that the evidence on record clearly indicated that the wife was of a quarrelsome nature and used police machinery to harass the husband and this, by itself, was a proof of his wife’s cantankerous behavior. 5. He submitted that the evidence on record clearly indicated that the wife was of a quarrelsome nature and used police machinery to harass the husband and this, by itself, was a proof of his wife’s cantankerous behavior. 5. It was also argued that the wife was guilty of making false allegations regarding the death of her husband’s first wife and she was guilty of making imputations that the death of his first wife as an unnatural death and was attributable to the husband’s behavior. The learned counsel also submitted that the Family Court had basically ignored the voluminous documents which were on the record, which clearly established the cruelty that had been inflicted upon the husband. 6. He submitted that the messages which were produced by the husband were not even acknowledged by the Trial Court and a reading of these messages would clearly indicate that the wife’s intention was only to harass the husband. The learned counsel sought to place reliance on the email, in which the wife had made several allegations and according to him, had made extraordinary demands from the husband. He, therefore, prayed that the order of the Family Court be reversed and the wife’s restitution application be dismissed and the husband’s claim for divorce be granted. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the wife on the other hand contended that the wife had made every possible attempt to save the marriage and yet she had been deliberately kept away. He submitted that the refusal on the part of the husband to take her back was, in fact, admitted and there was no justifiable cause for this particular conduct. The learned counsel submitted that the wife, as rightly observed by the Family Court, has made an enormous sacrifice in agreeing not to conceive a child in order to protect the son of the husband from the earlier marriage. He submitted that this sacrifice indicated her commitment to have a happy marital life and the assertion that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty, was palpably false. 8. He submitted that this sacrifice indicated her commitment to have a happy marital life and the assertion that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty, was palpably false. 8. The learned counsel for the wife submitted that the wife’s trust in the marriage and her husband was betrayed and basically misused and she was justified in adducing that she had been cheated when three apartments that her husband had owned at the time of the marriage, were transferred to his son as well as his father without even informing her. He submitted that the wife had entered into the marriage, knowing fully well that the husband had a 12 year old son through his first wife and that it was clearly borne out from the record that he owned properties in which it had been agreed that they would reside, but, the subsequent conduct of the husband in surreptitiously transferring the properties was designed to make the wife weak, vulnerable and insecure and thereby be completely dependent upon the husband. He submitted that the Family Court after taking into consideration all these factors was justified in granting the decree of restitution and rejecting the claim of the husband for divorce. 9. The learned counsels for the parties were also called upon to make their submissions regarding the aspect of permanent alimony and accordingly, both the learned counsels have made elaborate submissions in this regard. 10. The leaned counsel appearing for the husband in his written arguments has basically stated that the claim for maintenance was considered by the Family Court in 125 proceedings and a sum of Rs.1 lac per month has been ordered, as against which, a revision has been filed before this Court and the order directing payment of Rs.1 lac has been stayed subject to the condition that a sum of Rs.25,000/- be paid every month by the husband. He submits that when the proceedings for maintenance were pending consideration under Section 125 , the question of alimony would not be gone into by this Court. He also submits that pursuant to the orders passed under Section 125 , the husband had in fact paid a huge sum of Rs.36,20,000/- so far. He also submitted that the wife was owning an apartment which was fetching a rental income and, therefore, there was no justification for grant of any permanent alimony. 11. He also submits that pursuant to the orders passed under Section 125 , the husband had in fact paid a huge sum of Rs.36,20,000/- so far. He also submitted that the wife was owning an apartment which was fetching a rental income and, therefore, there was no justification for grant of any permanent alimony. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the wife, on the other hand, contended that the evidence on record clearly indicated that the husband was earning sums in the range of Rs.60 to 90 lacs per year and therefore, in the event, the Court comes to the conclusion that the marriage was required to be dissolved by the grant of a decree of divorce, an appropriate sum be granted as alimony taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, the standard of living that the parties were accustomed to and also the evidence on record regarding the income of the husband. 12. In the light of the above, the point to be considered in these appeals is as to whether the Family Court was justified in granting the decree for restitution of conjugal rights and dismissing the counter claim for divorce. 13. The undisputed facts in this case are that whether the marriage between the husband and wife took place in 2013 when both of them were nearly 40 years of age. The wife, in fact, was aware that the husband was married earlier and his earlier wife had committed suicide and out of the earlier marriage, he also had a 12 year old son at the time of marriage. It is therefore clear that the husband and wife were quite mature and were conscious of the situation they were in when they had agreed to contract their marriage. 14. The evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Family Court clearly indicate that the wife had agreed to marry the husband who had a 12 year old son and she had also, more importantly, agreed not to have any child through this second marriage so as to ensure that there would be no conflict in the matter of providing love and affection to the child born through the earlier marriage. The Family Court was, therefore, justified in coming to the conclusion that the wife did make a sacrifice when she agreed to marry a person who had been earlier married, had a son by that marriage and the wife in the background of these facts had agreed to give up her right to have a child. It cannot, therefore, be in doubt that the wife did make a personal sacrifice when she agreed for the second marriage and this indicates her commitment to make the marriage work. 15. It must be borne in mind that the wife, who was aged about 38 years and was unmarried at the time of marriage, was also keen on settling down in life and could have therefore agreed to these sacrifices, but the fact remains that this only indicates that she was keen on having a successful marriage. The fact that the husband was working as a Pilot with a handsome income, who was well-settled in life and was blessed with a certain degree of wealth including the owning of two apartments in Mumbai, was a factor which induced the wife to make certain concessions. However, it cannot be ignored that the wife did make an enormous personal sacrifice when she consented for the marriage and when she agreed that they would not have any children out of this marriage. 16. The marital dispute that has arisen between the parties will have to be viewed in the background of these facts, which are out of the ordinary, and this dispute cannot be considered or adjudicated as in a normal marriage, wherein the marriage is a first marriage for both the spouses. 17. The Family Court has found that there were, however, immediate differences between the husband and wife which had resulted in wife returning to Ahmedabad within six months after the marriage. The Family Court had also recorded a finding, from the evidence adduced by both the parties, that when the wife had returned to Ahmedabad, her husband, had without informing her, had transferred all the three properties that he had owned, in the name of his son as also in the name of his father and he had thereafter proceeded to shift all their belongings to a rented flat. The Family Court has come to the conclusion that this particular act of the husband would by itself be sufficient to come to the conclusion that he was guilty of inflicting cruelty on the wife. 18. It must be kept in mind that in the present case, as observed above, the wife had agreed to marry the husband who had contracted an earlier marriage out of which he had a teenage son, and which had ultimately ended in a tragedy. The wife, in such a scenario, while agreeing to marry a person who was already married once, would have taken into consideration her prospective future in her marital life and she would also have been obviously influenced by the fact that her future would be financially secure since her husband owned several immovable properties. In such a context, if the husband had chosen to transfer all these properties that he had owned and had shifted his home to a rented house without even informing the wife, the wife would be justified in coming to the conclusion that she had been betrayed by her husband. The Family Court, in this context, was justified in coming to the conclusion that this act of the husband in transferring his properties without informing his newly married wife was improper. 19. It is quite possible that the husband due to the early marital discord, had acted in this manner to protect the interest of his son and make his life secure and immune from any future complications. However, once the husband had married for the second time, there must be a certain degree of circumspection in the manner in which he dealt with his properties and the impact that it would have on his second wife, especially, when the second wife had agreed to marry him with a clear understanding that they would not have a child out of this second marriage. The Family Court, therefore, was justified in coming to the conclusion that the husband had treated the wife with cruelty. 20. The Family Court, after noticing the admission of the husband that he had installed CCTV cameras in all the rooms and the microphone in the bathroom, has come to the conclusion was an inhumane act and only indicated his suspicious nature. 20. The Family Court, after noticing the admission of the husband that he had installed CCTV cameras in all the rooms and the microphone in the bathroom, has come to the conclusion was an inhumane act and only indicated his suspicious nature. If the wife is facing this situation where all the rooms in the house contained CCTV cameras recording all her movements, it is clear that such an atmosphere can hardly be considered as comfortable or homely and conducive to a normal marital life. Every wife is surely entitled to a certain degree of privacy and her right to privacy cannot be defied by installing the CCTV cameras in all the rooms, including the bathroom. The Trial Court, therefore, was justified in coming to the conclusion that this act also amounted to infliction of cruelty on her by the husband. 21. The Trial Court has taken note of the fact that the husband being guilty of inflicting cruelty, was essentially the wrong doer and he cannot take advantage of his own wrong and, therefore, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the counter claim of the husband for divorce. 22. As far as the wife’s claim for restitution of conjugal rights is concerned, the Family Court has noticed that the husband had admitted that he was not willing to take the wife back and this conduct of the husband itself indicated that he was guilty of deserting his wife without any justifiable cause and therefore she was entitled for restitution of her conjugal rights, more so, when she had made the sacrifice of not having any children when she had agreed to marry. 23. The Family Court has noticed that the wife was treated unfairly and her right to privacy had been infringed upon. The Family Court was therefore justified in coming to the conclusion that she was entitled for restitution of conjugal rights. Thus, in our view, this finding of the Family Court, which is based on the admitted facts, as deposed by the parties, cannot be found fault with. 24. However, notwithstanding the fact that we are in agreement with the findings recorded by the Family Court and with the reasoning of the Family Court, we are also of the view that this is a case where continuation of the cohabitation of the husband and wife would only amount to perpetuating cruelty upon both of them. 25. 24. However, notwithstanding the fact that we are in agreement with the findings recorded by the Family Court and with the reasoning of the Family Court, we are also of the view that this is a case where continuation of the cohabitation of the husband and wife would only amount to perpetuating cruelty upon both of them. 25. It is not in dispute that the husband and wife are presently in their 50s and they have been residing separately since July 2015, i.e. for the past 10 years by now. The evidence on record clearly indicates that the husband and wife have lost their trust in each other and the marriage is dead for all the purposes. The fact that the husband had installed CCTV cameras in all the rooms and also a microphone in the bathroom in the initial period of their marital life would itself clearly indicate that the question of there being a normal marital life between them is beyond the realm of possibility. Given the passage of time since their separate and their apparent animosity to each other which has resulted in multiple litigations, it is clearly apparent that the marriage is beyond repair. 26. The Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Raman v. Kavita reported in (2023) 17 SCC 433 , has held as follows:- “21. The view taken by the Delhi High Court in the present case that mere filing of criminal cases by the wife does not constitute cruelty as what has also to be seen are the circumstances under which cases were filed, is a finding we do not wish to disregard totally, in fact as a pure proposition of law it may be correct, but then we must also closely examine the entire facts of the case which are now before us. When we take into consideration the facts as they exist today, we are convinced that continuation of this marriage would mean continuation of cruelty, which each now inflicts on the other. 22. Irretrievable breakdown of a marriage may not be a ground for dissolution of marriage, under the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , but cruelty is. A marriage can be dissolved by a decree of divorce, inter alia, on the ground when the other party “has, after the solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty” 23. 22. Irretrievable breakdown of a marriage may not be a ground for dissolution of marriage, under the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , but cruelty is. A marriage can be dissolved by a decree of divorce, inter alia, on the ground when the other party “has, after the solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty” 23. In our considered opinion, a marital relationship which has only become more bitter and acrimonious over the years, does nothing but inflicts cruelty on both the sides. To keep the façade of this broken marriage alive would be doing injustice to both the parties. A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, in our opinion spells cruelty to both the parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the other with cruelty. It is therefore a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act. 28. We therefore hold that in a given case, such as the one at hand, where the marital relationship has broken down irretrievably, where there is a long separation and absence of cohabitation (as in the present case for the last 25 years), with multiple Court cases between the parties; then continuation of such a ‘marriage’ would only mean giving sanction to cruelty which each is inflicting on the other. We are also conscious of the fact that a dissolution of this marriage would affect only the two parties as there is no child out of the wedlock.” 27. In our view, the proposition of law enunciated by the Apex Court would aptly cover the factual situation in the present case also. It is rather clear that the marital relations between the husband and wife have broken down irretrievably cannot be redeemed. Furthermore, there has been a long separation between the husband and wife and in the absence of cohabitation, continuation of such a marriage would only mean festering cruelty upon both husband and wife. 28. It is rather clear that the marital relations between the husband and wife have broken down irretrievably cannot be redeemed. Furthermore, there has been a long separation between the husband and wife and in the absence of cohabitation, continuation of such a marriage would only mean festering cruelty upon both husband and wife. 28. Having regard to the nature of the dispute between the husband and wife and the prevailing and undeniable acrimony between them, though the Family Court was justified in refusing to entertain the counter claim for divorce of the husband, in our view, since the marriage has reached to a point of no return and continuation of such a dead marriage would only inflict misery and hardship upon both the husband and wife, it would be appropriate to order for dissolution of the marriage by way of a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. 29. Accordingly, we hold that the marriage between the husband and wife, which is solemnized on 27.5.2023, is required to be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Consequently, the claim of the wife for restitution of conjugal rights is rejected. 30. The matter cannot not however come to an end by the mere dissolution of the marriage and necessarily the aspect of permanent alimony for the wife will also have to be considered and her future will also have to be taken care. 31. It is to be noted that this is a case where the evidence on record and the findings of the Family Court is to the effect that the wife was working as a teacher and was earning a sum of Rs.4 lacs per annum and she had chosen to quit her job, so as to ensure that she could have a married life. It is thus clear that the wife did sacrifice her entire way of life for her marriage with the fond hope of a successfully marital life. It will have to be taken note of the fact that as on the date of marriage, the wife was earning nearly Rs.35,000/- per month and she was in fact paying EMIs of Rs.17,250/- towards the flat that she had purchased. This would indicate that she possessed a good standard of living even before her marriage. 32. It will have to be taken note of the fact that as on the date of marriage, the wife was earning nearly Rs.35,000/- per month and she was in fact paying EMIs of Rs.17,250/- towards the flat that she had purchased. This would indicate that she possessed a good standard of living even before her marriage. 32. The husband has in fact stated in his reply, which is also recorded by the Family Court at para-3 of its order, that at the time of marriage, the husband had undertaken the liability of paying EMIs of Rs.17,250/- per month and he was also transferring Rs.20,000/- per month to the ICICI bank account not only to take care of her personal expenditure but also the household expenditure. Thus, the husband, at the time of the marriage in 2013, was admittedly paying Rs.20,000/- plus Rs.17,250/-, i.e. nearly Rs.40,000/- per month to the wife to take care of her needs. It is forthcoming from the evidence that the husband paid EMIs till July 2017 and thereafter, the loan has been cleared by the wife. 33. The husband had filed his income tax returns before the Family Court for the following years, in which he had declared his income as follows: Assessment Years Amount 2020-21 Rs.16,38,016.00 2021-22 Rs.26,59,224.00 2022-23 Rs.31,46,278.00 34. The husband has also filed his income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2023-2024 to 2025-2026 in which he has declared his income as follows. Assessment Year Amount 2023-2024 Rs.11,23,294.10 2024-2025 Rs.30,76,034.00 2025-2026 Rs.33,47,722.00 As could be seen from the above, the average income of the husband for the past nearly six years has been approximately Rs.25 lacs. 35. As per the translated copy furnished by the husband of his deposition regarding his cross-examination, it has been recorded as follows: “Question: During March-2018 to November-2021 the total amount of Rs.5,83,07,117.73/- has been deposited in your account of ICICIC Bank and the total amount of Rs.6,02,40,862.25/- has been withdrawn from this account, so your maximum annual gross income i.e. Rs. One Crore is shown in your income tax return more than which around Rs. Two Crore annual income results from this one bank statement only? Ans: My source of income is my rental income apart from salary as well as the income of those which invest in FD. Apart from this I have no other income. One Crore is shown in your income tax return more than which around Rs. Two Crore annual income results from this one bank statement only? Ans: My source of income is my rental income apart from salary as well as the income of those which invest in FD. Apart from this I have no other income. I transferred my property to my son Karan by gift deed in the year 2014 and as he was minor the rent amount of those property was credited to my account and the maintenance of that property was paid from my account but now my son Karan is 19 years old. So the amount of rent income is credited in his account.” This would, therefore, indicate that the husband has three sources of income, viz. firstly from the salary, secondly from the rental income and thirdly from the income derived from the fixed deposits. The details of the fixed deposits are, however, not forthcoming. However, we gathered from the above statement that the husband is financially strong having multiple sources of income. 36. It may also be pertinent to state here that the husband has stated as follows regarding his acquisition of the immovable properties:- “In the year 2000 I bought the property of Dhiraj Enclave for Rs.Ten Lakhs and in the year 2003 I bought the property situated in Viceroy Park in Mumbai for Rs.39 Lakhs and I purchaser this property in the scheme namely Blue Ridge scheme in Pune for Rs.48 Lakhs in Sept.-2007.” 37. This would indicate that for a period of about 07 years, the husband had acquired three properties, worth a crore of rupees. Furthermore, he has stated that he had purchased total 07 policies in ICICI Life Insurance and the premium amount was approximately Rs.2 lacs, Rs.3 lacs and Rs.5 lacs. Though the husband has stated that the policies were deactivated, but the fact that the husband was paying the premium to the tune of Rs.5 lacs would indicate the extent of his income. 38. The husband, admittedly, owned three properties, all of which he has voluntarily transferred to his son and to his father. It was also argued that the son from the first marriage is also working as a Pilot and the husband had incurred huge expenditure in this regard. 39. 38. The husband, admittedly, owned three properties, all of which he has voluntarily transferred to his son and to his father. It was also argued that the son from the first marriage is also working as a Pilot and the husband had incurred huge expenditure in this regard. 39. If the husband could have acquired three properties during his working career and also ensure that he spent considerable sums of money to educate his son and make him a pilot, it is obvious that he is financially strong and this also indicates the standard of living that he possesses which would also have been a factor to persuade the wife from marrying him. Consequently, the wife would have the legitimate expectation of having a comfortable, if not a luxurious way of living having regard to her husband’s earning and assets. The fact that the husband was paying a sum of nearly Rs. 40,000/- at the time of the marriage would also indicate the amount that he was setting apart for his wife’s well being. 40. Having regard to the totality of the evidence, including the bank statements which are produced by the husband, in our view, it would be appropriate to hold that the wife would be entitled to a permanent alimony of Rs.1 lac per month from the date of this order. 41. In order to bring quietus to the entire controversy, it would also be appropriate to hold that the wife is entitled to pendente lite maintenance at Rs.50,000/- per month from the date of the initiation of proceedings for restitution till the disposal of this appeal. The sums already paid under other proceedings shall obviously have to be deducted from this sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month that we are awarding as pendente lite maintenance, 42. As we are passing this order granting permanent alimony in exercise of the powers under Section 25 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , this order would supersede the orders passed in the proceedings under Section 125 . It must be kept in mind that the order passed for maintenance under Section 125 would only be till there is a determination of maintenance by the appropriate Civil Court. Thus, this order directing payment of permanent alimony of Rs. 1 lakh per month from the date of this order and the order granting a sum of Rs. It must be kept in mind that the order passed for maintenance under Section 125 would only be till there is a determination of maintenance by the appropriate Civil Court. Thus, this order directing payment of permanent alimony of Rs. 1 lakh per month from the date of this order and the order granting a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month as pendente lite maintenance will prevail over the order passed in the proceedings that have been initiated under Section 125 CrPC in respect of which a revision is pending before this Court. Consequently, the proceedings pending before this Court against the order passed under Section 125 by the Family Court shall also stands concluded in terms of this order. 43. The appeals of the husband are thus DISPOSED OF, by holding that the marriage between the husband and wife solemnized on 27.5.2013 shall stand dissolved by granting a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and also holding that the wife would be entitled to maintenance of Rs.1 lac per month from the date of this order till her lifetime as permanent alimony. The claim of the wife for restitution of conjugal rights shall stand dismissed.