[2025:RJ-JP:49207-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 47/2015 Smt Anju w/o Ajay Agarwal D/o Jagdish Prasad Mangal, R/o In front of State Bank Badi, Tehsil Badi, District Dholpur ----Appellant- Petitioner Versus Ajay Agarwal s/o Jagdish Agarwal, R/o 1 DA 5, Housing Board Colony, J.P. Nagar, Madar, Ajmer. ----Respondent- Defendant For Appellant(s) : Mr. Yogesh Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Trivedi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 03/12/2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – wife against the order dated 21.11.2014, whereby, the learned Family Court has rejected the prayer of the appellant for grant of permanent alimony to the tune of Rs.10 lacs. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant – wife filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955) before the learned Family Court seeking decree of divorce. The appellant – wife has also claimed Rs.10 lacs as permanent alimony. The learned Family Court vide order dated 21.11.2014, has partly allowed the application filed on behalf of appellant – wife under Section 13 of the Act of 1955, however, prayer for grant of permanent alimony to the tune of Rs.10 lacs was rejected. 3. Being aggrieved of the non-grant of permanent alimony, the appellant – wife has filed the present appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:49207-DB] (2 of 2) [CMA-47/2015] 4. Learned counsel for the appellant wife submitted that the learned Family Court has committed serious error in not granting the permanent alimony to the appellant wife. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent husband was not present before the learned Family Court, therefore, the learned Family Court has not allowed the permanent alimony to the appellant wife. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submissions made by counsel for the appellant. 6. We have gone through the order dated 21.11.2014 passed by learned Family Court as well as record of the case. 7. From the record of the case, it reveals that before the learned Family Court, wife has not filed any separate application under Section 25 of the Act of 1955 seeking permanent alimony. 8. We have also gone through the divorce application filed on behalf of the appellant–wife, wherein the only prayer made is for grant of permanent alimony to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs. However, no supporting document regarding the income of the husband was submitted before the learned Family Court. 9. In our considered view, learned Family Court has not committed any illegality in not allowing the permanent alimony to the appellant wife as claimed by her. 10. In view of the above, the appeal filed on behalf of appellant wife is dismissed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J PAYAL DHAWAN /122