Common Judgment:

K. Lakshman, J.

1. Heard Smt.B.Neeraja Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vipul Garg, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order and decree dated 17.10.2014 in O.P. No. 112 of 2013, passed by the Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge at Nizamabad, the Appellant-wife preferred the present appeal.

3. The Respondent–husband filed the aforesaid petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter, “the Act”) seeking dissolution of marriage with the Appellant–wife on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

4. The case of the Respondent-husband is that his marriage was performed with the Appellant on 07.05.2006 at Nizamabad. It was an arranged marriage, performed as per Hindu rites and customs in the presence of elders and relatives. The parties lived together happily for one month, and thereafter differences arose between them. The Appellant-wife harassed the respondent – husband to live separately from his family members. They stayed in a rented house at Borgam village. Thereafter, within one month, the Appellant-wife conceived, but continued harassing the Respondent-husband in petty matters.

5. The Appellant-wife gave birth to a male child named Sharath Chandra on 20.02.2007. Even after the birth of the child, her attitude did not change. She beat the Respondent-husband with hands and also used her nails to scratch him several times. She did not cooperate with the Respondent-husband in leading a happy matrimonial life. She refused to have a physical relationship with the husband, and thereafter left the matrimonial home without any reason or explanation and stayed at her parents’ home.

6. Although the Respondent-husband approached her on various occasions, the Appellant-wife refused to accompany him. Thus, within one year of marriage, the Appellant-wife left her matrimonial home without informing the Respondent-husband and stayed at her parents’ house for three months. Later, when the Respondent-husband went to his in-laws’ house for celebrating “Oora Panduga”, he was not allowed to enter the house and his father-in-law abused him in filthy language, claiming that one Srinivas was his son-in-law, and not the Respondent. Further, the father-in-law threatened him stating that he would file a dowry case if he did not send the Appellant-wife to her parents’ home.

7. Furthermore, the father-in-law also stated that his daughter was in love with her brother-in-law since a long time, and thus it is alleged by the Respondent that the marriage was performed by way of cheating and fraud. The Appellant-wife permanently deserted the Respondent-husband on 17.06.2011, without any reasonable cause.

8. Moreover, she filed a false case against her husband and his family members in Crime No. 301 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, “the IPC”) and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In addition to this, she also filed a Domestic Violence case.

9. Subsequently, on 27.01.2012, a Panchayat was arranged at Padmashali Sangam at Borgaon, in the presence of caste elders. The elders who attended the said Panchayat did not belong to the caste of the Respondent-husband; they threatened to kill him and also created a galata. The elders of the Sangam sent a letter dated 07.05.2012 to the Appellant’s father for resolving the issue. However, she rejected the said proposal vide letter dated 13.05.2012 expressing her disinclination in resolving the issue as the matter was pending before the Court. Thereafter, another letter dated 22.05.2012 was sent, however, the Appellant-wife did not respond.

10. With the aforesaid contentions, the Respondent-husband sought dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

11. On the contrary, the Appellant-wife filed her counter denying the allegations made by the Respondent-husband. She contended that her parents presented net cash of Rs. 1,75,000/-, 1.5 tulas of gold ring and chain, household articles worth Rs. 1,00,000/-, and spent huge amount of money in performing the marriage. She contends that all the gold ornaments remain in the possession of the Respondent-husband.

12. Further, she contended that the Respondent-husband demanded Rs.50,000/- from her father and also the registration of half portion of the house owned by her parents at Kotagalli, Nizamabad in his name. On failure to meet such demands, he threatened to kill her with a knife. He gorged a piece of cloth in her mouth and forcibly took her signatures on blank white papers. She also denied the allegations as to desertion and submitted that the Respondent-husband snatched her son, and necked her out from the house in the month of September 2011. Thus, she was living at her parents’ house and she obtained the custody of her child with the assistance of police.

13. With regard to the Panchayat, she stated that she along with her parents attended the Panchayat dated 27.01.2012 in the presence of caste elders. However, the Respondent-husband continuously made derogatory statements against her and her parents, and thus, the caste elders left the Panchayat without any conclusion on the dispute between the parties. Further, she contended that she suffered with mental agony on account of baseless allegations suspecting her character made by the Respondent-husband, which are defamatory in nature. Despite that she was ready to join the society of the Respondent for the sake of the minor child and to save the marriage.

14. With the aforesaid contentions, she sought to dismiss the petition.

15. To prove the grounds of cruelty and desertion, the Respondent-husband examined himself as P.W.1, and further examined P.W.2 to 6, and filed Exs. A1 to A6. P.W.2 is a Sangam member, P.W.3 is an elder from the Panchayat, P.W.4 is also a Sangam member, P.W.5 is a neighbour residing at the Borgam village, and P.W.6 is the landowner/house owner. Ex. A1 is the wedding card; Ex. A2 is the ‘marriage photograph’; Ex. A3 is the letter dated 07.05.2012 attested by the President of the Sangam; Ex. A4 is the letter dated 13.05.2012 addressed to Bheemaraya Padmashali Sangam; Ex. A5 is the letter dated 22.05.2012 issued by the President of Bheemaraya Padmashali Sangam, Nizamabad to Pattana Padmashli Sangam; and Ex. A6 is the ‘CD’ consisting video related to non-cooperation of the Appellant in respect of family duties towards her son and husband.

16. To disprove the claims of the Respondent-husband, the Appellant-wife examined herself as R.W.1. One of the caste elders was examined as R.W.2. She filed Ex. B1 (Oppanda Patramu/Lagna Patrika), which consists the details of the valuables presented to the Respondent during the marriage, i.e., Rs. 1,75,000/- cash, 1.5 tulas of gold, a motorcycle, and household articles.

17. On consideration of the said evidence, both oral and documentary, vide impugned order dated 17.10.2014, the learned Family Court granted a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by dissolving the marriage between the parties. Assailing the said Order, the Appellant-wife preferred the present appeal.

18. We have heard Smt. Neeraja Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vipul Garg, learned counsel appearing for the respondent extensively.

19. As discussed supra, the Respondent-husband filed the aforesaid OP under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act against the Appellant-wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

20. Perusal of the record would reveal that there is no dispute regarding the marriage dated 07.05.2006 between the parties. There are specific allegations with regard to cruelty and desertion made by the Respondent herein. There are specific allegations with regard to dowry harassment and domestic violence made by the Appellant herein.

21. P.W.1, the Respondent herein, repeated his averments as mentioned in the petition. In his cross-examination, it was elicited that when he visited the house of the Appellant-wife for Oora Panduga, the child was six months old. Further, with regard to Panchayats, it was elicited that despite the presence of his caste Sangams in his village, he approached the Sangam of Nizamabad, as the Appellant-wife did not respond to the Sangam of his village.

22. P.W.2, the President of the Padmashali Sangam, Gayathrinagar deposed about addressing Ex. A3 letter to Markandeya Sangam, Kotagally; receiving Ex. A4 reply from Bheemaraya Padmashali Sangam; and Ex. A5 letter addressing Pattana Padmashali Sangam. He further deposed that the President of Pattana Padmashali Sangam conducted a counselling session between the parties, however the counselling was not successful on account of non-cooperation of both the parties. In his cross-examination, it was further elicited that the Respondent herein was working as a Teacher in a Private School at Nizamabad. Moreover, he stated that the Respondent was also the Joint Secretary of the said Sangam.

23. P.W. 3, Vice-President of the Padmashali Sangam deposed regarding the Panchayat dated 27.01.2012 held at Padmashali Sangam at Borgam. He stated that since elders belonging to the other caste attended the Panchayat on behalf of the Appellant-wife, he requested them not to participate. However, those elders made an attempt to beat the mother of the Respondent-husband. Further, he deposed about a letter of the Bheemaraya Sangam addressed to the Sangam at Kotagally requesting to conduct counselling for the parties, however, the said Sangam refused to participate and no compromise was reached. Thereafter, the Appellant-wife lodged a complaint and left the child with the Respondent for six months. Later, on another police complaint, she obtained the custody of the child. In his cross-examination, it was elicited that the Appellant-wife lodged complaints twice; the first one was pertaining to pouring kerosene on her, and the second one was regarding the custody of the child.

24. P.W.4, the President of the Padmashali Sangam, deposed that around five years ago, he along with few others conducted the Panchayat at Borgam village for around four to five times. Despite that the Appellant-wife left the company of the Respondent-husband, leaving the child with him. Further, he deposed that the Appellant-wife brought persons belonging to other caste to the Panchayat. He also stated that the parties lived in a rented house at Nizamabad for four months, thereafter resided in their own house at Borgam village, then shifted to the house of Ega Srinivas, and later resided at the house of P.W.6. While residing at the house of P.W.6, Panchayats were conducted four times, and she was brought back to his house for three to four times. When she was questioned as to why she was frequently leaving the house of the Respondent-husband, she replied that she was staying at her sister’s house, and her husband should pick her up while returning home. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he brought gundas and was responsible for not conducting the Panchayat smoothly. He stated that the Appellant-wife left the company of the Respondent in January, 2012. It was also elicited that he did not file any ID card to show that he was the President of the Sangam at the relevant time.

25. P.W.5, the neighbour residing at Borgam village also deposed regarding the parties living together in a rented house at Borgam, and thereafter at their residence in Nizamabad. He further deposed regarding the parties residing in the houses owned by Potana, Srinivas Reddy, and Goud. He stated that the Appellant-wife left the company of the Respondent and got the custody of the child with the assistance of police. In his cross-examination, it was elicited that he deposed based on what he heard.

26. P.W.6, Govind Goud, deposed that the parties lived in his house as tenants for two years. The Appellant-wife used to quarrel with the Respondent-husband, while he advised them to live amicably. He further deposed that she went to her parents’ house, leaving her son at the Respondent’s house. He questioned her as to why she frequently left the house, but she never gave a proper reply. In his cross-examination, it was elicited that he did not file any proof to show that he was the owner of the house. He did not file the Rent Agreement executed by him and the Respondent before the Court.

27. On the contrary, R.W.1, the Appellant herein, repeated her averments as mentioned in the counter. However, she made an improvement in her chief examination that on demand of money by the Respondent-husband, her parents paid Rs. 50,000/- to him after the birth of the child.

28. R.W.2, the Ex-Joint Secretary, Padmashali Sangam of Ashok Veedhi, Tharpa No.1, Kotagally, Nizamabad deposed with respect to Ex. B1 (copy of Lagnapatrika). He further deposed that the parents of the Appellant-wife gave Rs. 50,000/- to the Respondent-husband on the birth of their son. He stated that in the month of September 2011, the Respondent forcefully snatched the minor son and necked the Appellant out of his house, and since then she has been residing at her parents’ house. He also deposed about the Panchayat convened on 27.01.2012, wherein the Respondent-husband and his supporters created galata in the Sangam. He also referred to the letter received from Bheemaraya Padmashali Sangam for settlement of disputes between the parties, however, as the Respondent-husband did not belong to the said Sangam, they did not respond.

29. The Learned Family Court on consideration of the material on record and evidences, both oral and documentary, elaborately discussed the same, and gave findings on several aspects.

30. As discussed supra, the Respondent-husband filed the aforesaid petition against the Appellant-wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Therefore, he has to plead and prove the same, by producing reliable and cogent evidence.

31. It is apt to note that ‘cruelty’ is not defined in any statute. This Court has to consider the allegations made by the Respondent-husband evidence both oral and documentary and assess as to whether the same amounts to cruelty or not.

32. It is also relevant to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh((2007) 4 SCC 511.) observed that human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bounds; therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values, and their value system.

33. In Rakesh Raman v. Smt. Kavita(2023 SCC OnLine SC 497.), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that Matrimonial cases before the Courts pose a different challenge, quite unlike any other, as we are dealing with human relationships with its bundle of emotions, with all its faults and frailties. It is not possible in every case to pin point to an act of cruelty or blameworthy conduct of the spouse. The nature of relationship, the general behaviour of the parties towards each other, or long separation between the two are relevant factors which a Court must take into consideration.

34. In Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli((2006) 4 SCC 558.), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions and their culture and human values which they attach importance. Each case has to be decided on its own merits.

35. In Sonal Talpada v. Veerbhan Singh(2026 SCC OnLine SC 1063), the Supreme Court observed that marriage, in its legal and constitutional dimension, can never be reduced to a mere contractual intersection of individual rights, nor can it be viewed strictly through the narrow lens of a petition for conjugal rights. It is a deeply personal and social partnership built on mutual respect, shared expectations and equal responsibility. When two parties enter into matrimony, they weave a tapestry of interdependence that demands a continuous balancing of interests. Conjugal rights do not exist in a vacuum; they are the structural counterparts to conjugal duties. To demand the fulfillment of the former while willfully abandoning the sanctity of the latter is to undermine the very essence of the institution. Matrimony, therefore, is not a one-sided right to be enforced, but a shared covenant of emotional support, fidelity, responsibility and care, where the rights of one are always tied to the duties they owe to the other. Persistent withdrawal from the foundational aspects of marriage may have legal consequences while evaluating allegations of mental cruelty.

36. In the light of the aforesaid principle laid down by the Apex Court, coming to the facts of the case on hand, it is not disputed that the parties got married on 07.05.2006. Out of the wedlock, a male child named Sharath Chandra was born on 20.02.2007. However, the parties lived together happily only for a short period. The period for which they lived together is disputed.

37. As discussed supra, it is the Respondent-husband who has to plead and prove cruelty. According to him, the Appellant-wife used to go to her parents’ house frequently and did not stay with him. He was harassed by her both mentally and physically. Moreover, his father-in-law abused him in filthy language when he visited their house for the “Oora Panduga”. Initially, she left the house of the Respondent, leaving their child with him. Later, with the assistance of police, she obtained the custody of the child. He was informed by his father-in-law that the Appellant had an affair with her brother-in-law even before the marriage. The Appellant also claimed that she did not need a husband, and she did not conceive through him. Moreover, she filed false criminal cases of dowry harassment and domestic violence against him and his family members.

38. Perusal of the evidence on record i.e., Exs. A3 to A5 would reveal that the Respondent-husband made attempts to resolve the disputes between parties by convening Panchayats. The Panchayat convened on 27.01.2012 did not yield any result, but the reason for its failure is disputed.

39. Basis the depositions of P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.6, it can be observed that the Appellant-wife deserted the Respondent, as she frequently went to her parents’ house and did not stay with her husband. She did not even give any proper explanation for the same. She stayed with the Respondent only for a short period of time after marriage. She chose to stay at either her sister’s house at Nandipet, or her parents’ house. Appellant (R.W.1), R.W.2, during their cross-examination admitted that Appellant left the company of respondent in September, 2011. However, according to them, she was forced to leave the company of respondent. During cross-examination, R.W.1 (wife) categorically admitted that after her marriage, she joined the respondent – husband, lived in in-law’s house. She blessed with a son in the year 2007 while she was staying in the said house. She lived in her in-law’s house till 2008 after the marriage. They lived in a rented house of Srinivasa Reddy for some time after 2008 of the same village. They lived in the said house on rent for five or six months. Thereafter, they shifted the residence to her in-law’s house till the criminal case is filed. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the Appellant-wife did not file any petition under Section 9 of the Act, for restitution of conjugal rights. R.W.2 evidence is not useful to the appellant to disprove the cruelty and desertion. On the other hand, respondent – husband examined P.Ws.2 to 6 to specifically depose about the desertion on 17.06.2011. Respondent made all efforts to bring her back but the same became futile. It is also not in dispute that at the instance of appellant, police registered a case against the respondent and his family members for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and 506 of IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police arrested the respondent, he was in jail for five days. The Investigating Officer, on completion of investigation, laid charge sheet against the respondent and deleted the names of brother and sisters of the respondent. It is also not in dispute that appellant had also filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. Caste elders of the appellant and respondent tried to resolve the issues and they could not. The said facts would reveal that the appellant deserted the respondent and subjected him to cruelty. As discussed supra, at the cost of repetition, appellant did not file any application under Section 9 of the Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. This shows that she did not intend to resume marital life with the Respondent.

40. In the present case, it is apt to note that when the O.P. was filed, the Appellant was 27 years old and the Respondent was 31 years old. At present, they are 40 years old and 44 years old respectively. They have been living separately for more than 15 years. There is irretrievable breakdown of marriage. There is no dispute that neither the Family Court nor this Court can grant decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. However, the said aspects can be considered along with the other aspects. It is also not in dispute that cruelty is not defined in any statute, however, the Family Court and this Court can consider the allegations made by the husband seeking divorce and see as to whether the same amounts to cruelty.

41. On appreciation of the said evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Family Court held that it is a fit case for granting divorce. It is a reasoned order and well founded. Appellant herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the said order.

42. The Appellant-wife filed I.A. No. 1 of 2026 in the present appeal to receive additional evidence to contend that the attitude of the Respondent herein in respect of non-payment of maintenance even after lapse of eleven years from the decree of divorce being granted. She sought to place additional evidence in respect of the miscellaneous petitions filed by her for recovery of maintenance amount. Further, she sought this Court to grant permanent alimony in the interest of justice. If the respondent fails to pay the maintenance as awarded by the learned Magistrate in DVC and in an application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., it is for the Appellant to take steps in accordance with law. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and that the order passed by the learned Family Court is reasoned, there is no error in it, this application is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

43. The Respondent-husband also filed I.A. No. 2 of 2026 in the present appeal to receive additional evidence regarding the subsequent developments that took place pertaining to the criminal cases and the maintenance case filed against him by the Appellant herein, after the judgment was passed in O.P. No. 112 of 2013. As discussed supra, we have held that the impugned order passed by Family court is reasoned, this application is dismissed.

44. Further, the Respondent filed I.A. No. 3 of 2026 stating that the Appellant-wife made intentionally false statements regarding non-payment of maintenance in her affidavit in I.A. No. 1 of 2026, and thereby committed the offence of perjury under Sections 227, 229, 236, and 246 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He sought to register a criminal case against the Appellant herein for perjury under Section 379 r/w Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. As discussed supra, we have confirmed the order passed by the Family Court granting divorce and therefore, we are not inclined to delve into the aspect of perjury. Thus, I.A. No. 3 of 2026 is accordingly dismissed.

45. Subsequently, the Appellant-wife filed I.A. No. 4 of 2026, seeking an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- towards permanent alimony. She has filed the said application under Section 151 of CPC. Appellant contended that respondent did not pay the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Magistrate and also referred about the petitions filed under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C., Crl.R.C. No.1914 of 2018 etc. Respondent is a practising advocate and he is earning lot of money and therefore, she is entitled for the said amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. Respondent disputed the same. Therefore, there are disputed facts. However, no separate application was filed under Section 25 of the Act, seeking permanent alimony. The said provision expressly mentions that a party seeking permanent alimony has to make an application for the same and prove the claim of permanent alimony by producing the evidence including filing of affidavits disclosing the assets and liabilities of the parties. In the present case, the Appellant has not filed any application. If the Appellant wants permanent alimony, she may make an application as required under the Section 25 of the Act before the appropriate forum, adduce evidence both oral and documentary in support of the same.

46. In Sukhdev Singh vs. Sukhbir Kaur((2025) SCC OnLine SC 299), three Judge Bench framed the following questions:

               (i) Whether a spouse of a marriage declared as void by a competent Court under Section 11 of the 1955 Act is entitled to claim permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25 of the 1955 Act?

               (ii)Whether in a petition filed seeking a declaration under Section 11 of the 1955 Act, a spouse is entitled to seek maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the 1955 Act?

47. Accordingly, the Apex Court answered the above questions as follows:

               (i) A spouse whose marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of the 1955 Act is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse by invoking Section 25 of the 1955 Act. Whether such a relief of permanent alimony can be granted or not always depends on the facts of each case and the conduct of the parties. The grant of relief under Section 25 is always discretionary; and

               (ii) Even if a court comes to a prima facie conclusion that the marriage between the parties is void or voidable, pending the final disposal of the proceeding under the 1955 Act, the court is not precluded from granting maintenance pendente lite provided the conditions mentioned in Section 24 are satisfied. While deciding the prayer for interim relief under Section 24, the Court will always take into consideration the conduct of the party seeking the relief, as the grant of relief under Section 24 is always discretionary.

48. Thereafter, the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh vs. Sukhbir Kaur(Order dated 04.06.2026 in Civil Appeal Nos.2536 and 4726 of 2019), considering the scope and ambit of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, held that the relief of permanent alimony can be granted in the matters of decrees under Section 11 of the Act, as well. However, it depends on the facts of the case and conduct of the applicant. The Court has to take into consideration the conduct of the party seeking the relief and the relief is always discretionary. Since the application for interim maintenance was raised by the wife in the first appeal before the High Court, there was no evidence before the Court to decide on the aspect of maintenance and quantum. Thus, the matter was referred back to the Family Court to decide in respect of grant of interim maintenance and permanent alimony under Sections 24 and 25 of  the Act, after giving due opportunity to the parties for leading evidence.

49. In the light of the same, as discussed supra, even in the case on hand, there was no application filed by the appellant – wife before the Family Court under Section 25 of the Act, seeking permanent alimony. Even in the present appeal, she did not file any application under Section 25 of the Act, seeking permanent alimony. She has filed the aforesaid application under Section 151 of CPC, seeking permanent alimony of Rs.50 Lakhs for the first time. The appellant herein did not file any supporting documents or material in support of her claim of Rs.50 Lakhs, towards permanent alimony. Therefore, in the absence of the same, more particularly, affidavits declaring assets and liabilities of the parties as held by the Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha(2021) 2 SCC 324,), this Court is not in a position to decide the quantum and permanent alimony as claimed by the appellant.

50. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kuldeep Rai v. Smt. Rita (2024 SCC OnLine MP 9656.). Therefore, in the present case, in the absence of a specific application, we are not inclined towards awarding permanent alimony to the Appellant-wife. Thus, I.A. No. 4 of 2026 is accordingly dismissed.

51. In the light of the above, the impugned Order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the learned Family Court in O.P. 112 of 2013 dissolving the marriage of the Appellant-wife with the Respondent-husband solemnized on 07.05.2006 by way of granting divorce, does not warrant any interference. Therefore, this Appeal is liable to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed confirming the order dated 17.10.2024 passed in O.P. 112 of 2013 by the learned Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge at Nizamabad dissolving the marriage of the Appellant-wife with the Respondent-husband solemnized on 07.05.2006 by way of granting divorce. However, liberty is granted to the Appellant-wife to seek permanent alimony by initiating appropriate legal proceedings. As discussed supra, I.A.Nos. 1 to 4 of 2026 are dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.