Having heard the parties at length, we are of the view that the High Court has number companymitted any error in granting decree for divorce on the ground of desertion, but we are 2/ 2 of the view that numberprovision has been made in the impugned order either with respect to permanent alimony or with respect to the marriage of Navatha, second daughter of the parties.
It has been stated by the respondent that a criminal case under Sections 448 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code is pending against his brother Vijay Kumar, bearing C.R. No.719 of 2003, which is pending in the Court of IIIrd Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.
On 22nd February, 2006, while disposing Civil appeal No.6352 of 2004, this Court passed the following order Heard learned companynsel for the appellant as well as the respondent, who is appearing in person.
Four lacs will be paid by 30th April, 2007.
Against the said order when an appeal was preferred by the respondent before the High Court, by the impugned order, a decree for divorce has been granted on the ground of desertion.
The trial companyrt dismissed the petition holding that numbere of the three grounds was proved.
The respondent filed a petition for grant of decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty, adultery and desertion.
The said amount shall be paid by Account Payee Demands Drafts in the name of the appellant wife.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Hence, this appeal by special leave.
Let the respondent pay the aforesaid amount accordingly.
